Colorado’s Democratic-controlled House on Sunday passed a bill that would ban the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms, a major step for the legislation after roughly the same bill was swiftly killed by Democrats last year.

The bill, which passed on a 35-27 vote, is now on its way to the Democratic-led state Senate. If it passes there, it could bring Colorado in line with 10 other states — including California, New York and Illinois — that have prohibitions on semiautomatic guns.

But even in a state plagued by some of the nation’s worst mass shootings, such legislation faces headwinds.

Colorado’s political history is purple, shifting blue only recently. The bill’s chances of success in the state Senate are lower than they were in the House, where Democrats have a 46-19 majority and a bigger far-left flank. Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, has indicated his wariness over such a ban.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    281 year ago

    This just seems like a stupid time to be pressing legislation like this. I don’t even disagree with it myself. I just think it’s idiotic from a political perspective. The Dems can see the GoP struggling with the fall out of Roe v. Wade, and they still want to step into this fight now?

    • Sippy Cup
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      Step in and lose as it’s swiftly struck down by one of the most conservative courts in history.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

        You don’t have to be a conservative to recognize it’s a violation of the 2nd amendment.

        • Sippy Cup
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Man people really love to drop off the first half of that sentence when quoting the second amendment.

          Who’s being denied access to arms? It doesn’t say you get any firearm you want and there’s plenty of precedent keeping certain firearms regulated.

          Also, which militia are you a member of, specifically?

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            11 year ago

            It doesn’t say you get any firearm

            It says shall not be infringed which means what it says. There is no prescription for what is allowed but instead the opposite. The government cannot and should not prevent the population from arming itself. If people think that’s disagreeable then they should amend the constitution not defy it.

            The constitution was written by people who had just overthrown a government. This amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters. It’s specifically to enable the people to take control if the government gets out hand.

            Also, which militia are you a member of, specifically?

            Do you think the US would allow a militia to exist when it’s entire purpose is to be a check on government power?

            • Sippy Cup
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              Also the idea that the founding fathers wrote down the bill of rights, still battle weary with fear of future governments is completely false.

              The bill of rights was written ten years after the war had been settled, with a significant faction of the founders worried about another revolution.

              They had just come out of the Articles of Confederation, a government that had no authority to tax or raise an army. The second amendment was written to address specifically that issue. That we need a militia to defend the country since we really can’t do it any other way, and don’t want to. So might as well let farmers have guns, much to the dismay of the federalists.

            • Sippy Cup
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              The amendment specifically states that it’s there to aid the common defense.

              You really aught to read the entire amendment.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    97
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    This will get struck down, and it’ll be the one thing I agree with when it does. You can’t just make everything except bolt-action rifles illegal. Semi-automatic firearms encompasses 99% of what people use for self defense in America. This is a clear violation of rights.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      361 year ago

      Agreed. The 2A is a right, full stop. Doesn’t matter if you or I like it, the courts agree, and have historically.

      You’ll get a dozen dumb arguments, but none will address the fact of the 2A. And there’s no way it gets overturned given our amendment procedures.

      This is actually a pretty dumb stunt. It’s going to lose in court, zero doubt. And now there’s more precedence.

    • Flying Squid
      link
      fedilink
      91 year ago

      You can’t just make everything except bolt-action rifles illegal.

      Britain did.

      And if we’re going on the intent of the founders, they mostly had muzzle-loaders in mind. They certainly didn’t consider automatic weapons able to fire huge amounts of bullets extremely quickly.

      • @[email protected]M
        link
        fedilink
        221 year ago

        Britain doesn’t have a 2nd Amendment.

        Now, if you want to repeal it, sure, there’s a process for that…

        Start by getting 290 votes in the House. The same body that struggles to get a simple 218 vote majority to decide who their own leader is.

        Then you get 67 votes in the Senate. The same body that struggles to get 60 votes to overcome a filibuster.

        Then, assuming you get all that, you need ratification from 38 states. In 2020, Biden and Trump split the states 25/25. So you need ALL the Biden states (good luck getting Georgia!) and 13 Trump states. For every Biden state you lose, you need +1 Trump state.

        • Flying Squid
          link
          fedilink
          61 year ago

          Unless you just have a sensible court that don’t claim to be “Originalists” while at the same time ignoring the fact that the arms the founders were think of were not ones that didn’t exist at the time.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            221 year ago

            Email and Twitter didn’t exist at the time either, but they are still protected under the First and Fourth Amendments. Cell phones with unlock codes didn’t exist, but they’re still covered under the Fourth Amendment That’s a spurious argument that holds zero merit.

            The Second Amendment might not be something you like, but modern firearms are ABSOLUTELY covered. The second amendment must be altered or removed from the Constitution to come even close to what you’re asking. And that process was explained to you up the thread a little

            • Flying Squid
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              And yet “originalist” judges say that we need to consider what the founders meant. Except, apparently, when it comes to one half of one amendment.

          • @[email protected]M
            link
            fedilink
            91 year ago

            Well, then you need to spend 50 years dedicated to changing the makeup of the Court the way the Republicans did with Roe… see you in 2074! Well, not me PERSONALLY, but you get the idea. ;)

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        They certanly did, as Thomas Jefferson owned two of them, each carrying 35 rounds of .29mm. One is on display at Monticello, the one he lent to the Lewis & Clark Expedition that was used to successfully defeat a 50-man raiding party, is kept at The Smithsonian.

      • nickwitha_k (he/him)
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        Was discussing this recently. A big bit of context that is important is how the founders intended for the military to be organized for their fledgling nation. Their intent was that there be no standing army because all of the powers that they knew that had them used them for imperialism and tyranny. So, the intent was to prevent states from getting in the way of raising regular (trained and uniformed) and irregular (anyone who could shoulder a musket) militia, should it be necessary to defend the nation against an incursion from a hostile power.

        Now, it’s been well over a hundred years since the US has had a standing army. While that does not technically invalidate the Second Amendment, it does make it an anachronism that doesn’t fit in the context of the modern world. It should have been re-legislated as soon as a standing army became a thing.

        Now, if only there were a mechanism built into the US Constitution to allow it to be updated to fit the needs of the nation. Maybe they could have called them “Changements”. /s

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      71 year ago

      Agreed! It’s UNCONSTITUTIONAL to have ANY form of Regulation on Arms! Why is it ILLEGAL for me to not be able to own a Grenade Launcher? UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

      • kimjongunderdog
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        Hey folks, this comment above mine is what’s called a ‘straw-man’ fallacy. It’s when you don’t have an argument against for the specific argument being stated, so you invent another similar but significantly different argument to argue against instead. The first comment states that it’s ridiculous to ban semi auto firearms when that’s the vast majority of guns you can buy, and the second commenter instead argues that they should be legally allowed to own a grenade launcher in sarcasm as an attempt to show how firearm legal restrictions are a good thing as they prevent the ownership of grenade launchers.

        Also, it’s legal to own a grenade launcher in the US. It’s just not legal to own the grenades. Plus, a grenade launcher is really just any 37mm chambered weapon. It could fire grenades, flares, or smoke bombs. They’re also single shot weapons, so a semi-auto ban isn’t going to cover them.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          I’m Pro Life and see NO PROBLEM with people with Mental Health issues having Grenade Launchers. After all ANY FORM OF Well Regulation is AGAINST the Constitution! And pointing out your Hypocrisy is OBVIOUSLY a Straw Man Fallacy!

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        101 year ago

        you CAN own a Grenade Launcher. you just have to jump through ATF hoops and pay hella tax.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Guess it isn’t a right in that case. Last time I checked I don’t have to pay money and fill out paperwork to express my political opinions.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        71 year ago

        Your use of randomly capitalized words does not, at all, make you look like a child screaming because his mom said no McDonalds. Definitely not.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      681 year ago

      Right or wrong it’s a constitutional right for a reason, and that reason has nothing to do with hunting.

      Similar to GOP and abortion, dems need to drop this fight. Let’s fix healthcare and save/improve more lives than almost everything else you could spend time on.

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        You’re right. It has to due with being able to call up a militia. I don’t see any of these gun stores asking for militia papers before selling.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I don’t think that’s actually what we would want. Militias at this point would just be indoctrination machines.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            71 year ago

            Unless someone runs an LGBTQIA+ militia and pays for range days and safety classes every month, most militias people look to join are run by obese Right wing nutcases.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                4
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                There are some of us doing this, but not enough. The Socialist Rifle Association is very LGBTQIA+ friendly. They probably have a chapter near anyone in the US that happens to be reading this, if they are interested in learning how to defend and support their communities.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                51 year ago

                private schools have no government oversight. public ones do. therefore my (and your) tax dollars to go those schools. This is why i specified public schools over private. Not everyone can afford to send their kids to a private school and if they do and don’t like the curriculum, that’s easily changed. Public school not so much. Broaden your mind a little bit instead of just being instantly confrontational.

        • @[email protected]M
          link
          fedilink
          211 year ago

          Militia didn’t mean the same thing back then. It meant “any able bodied adult to be called up at a moments notice.”

          There’s also a (not surprisingly) racist background to the 2nd as well:

          https://www.npr.org/2021/06/02/1002107670/historian-uncovers-the-racist-roots-of-the-2nd-amendment

          “It was in response to the concerns coming out of the Virginia ratification convention for the Constitution, led by Patrick Henry and George Mason, that a militia that was controlled solely by the federal government would not be there to protect the slave owners from an enslaved uprising. And … James Madison crafted that language in order to mollify the concerns coming out of Virginia and the anti-Federalists, that they would still have full control over their state militias — and those militias were used in order to quell slave revolts. … The Second Amendment really provided the cover, the assurances that Patrick Henry and George Mason needed, that the militias would not be controlled by the federal government, but that they would be controlled by the states and at the beck and call of the states to be able to put down these uprisings.”

          • nickwitha_k (he/him)
            link
            fedilink
            101 year ago

            Context also matters. The authors also thought that a standing army was part of the park to tyranny, opting for a militia system in place of it. The purpose of the Second Amendment, by its own words, is to ensure that nothing could legally stand in the way of regular and irregular militia being able to protect the fledgling nation.

            As it stands now, the Second Amendment is an anachronism that’s sole purpose for existing is no longer applicable. It needs to be re-evaluated and amended to fit the needs of a nation that has both a standing army and a problem with civilians shooting each other (police are civilians too).

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              lives in an era where vast swathes of the underclass live in de facto military occupation under a standing army in blue uniforms, where there is frequent murder with impunity and framing of innocent people to cover it up

              “As it stands now, the Second Amendment is an anachronism that’s [sic] sole purpose for existing is no longer applicable.”

              Unreal.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              41 year ago

              The constitution was specifically written to allow a standing army to exist. Not having one was a major failure of the articles of confederation. The second ammendment doesn’t exist for some obscure military purpose, it exists to give people the right to bear arms.

              • nickwitha_k (he/him)
                link
                fedilink
                11 year ago

                This is factually incorrect.

                To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

                • US Constitution Article I, Section 8, Clause 12

                Casual reading of contextual documents by the authors of the Constitution makes it very clear that the reason for the time limit is the belief that standing armies ought not to exist and are tools of tyranny. The context of the Second Amendment is not done obscure military one, it is blatant in the Amendment’s text that it concerns militia, which was the founders’ alternative to a standing army. In that context, yes, it does require that all people be able to bear arms because the irregular militia was basically anyone capable of shouldering a musket.

                However, as the country did move to have a standing army and police forces, the militia system is mostly obsolete. The closest thing to a militia in the country in modern times is the national guard but, they are closer to a “select militia” that was also looked upon unfavorably by the founders.

                I’m not placing a judgement on the Second Amendment as being right or wrong but that it was written for a context that is mismatched with our own. It needs to be re-evaluated and updated to account for the difference in context in order to have a logical place in the law of the country.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  The US has always had a standing army, so even the people that wrote the constitution voted to keep a standing army. The notion that it was intended to not have a standing army is a wilful misrepresentation.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                Because of the army. They knew an army was required, so they knew the populace must be permitted to keep their guns, to balance the power of the army.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              No they knew an army was necessary to defend the nation, and therefore militias were to be allowed to counterbalance the army.

            • @[email protected]M
              link
              fedilink
              81 year ago

              The trick with amending it is the process is such a high bar, it can’t be done given current political divisions.

              290 Congressmen, 67 Senators, and 38 states all have to agree to the new terms to make it happen.

              The last time we saw that kind of unity in the House was the 311 votes to bounce George Santos. LOL!

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          People always want to make it more difficult to get a gun, but when it comes to them actually paying for it (extra taxes covering free licensing, free safety classes, whatever) it’s crickets

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        40
        edit-2
        1 year ago

        I wish beyond wishing that O’rourke would have just shut the fuck up and deferred about coming after people’s guns in Texas. I really wonder if he could’ve squeaked a victory and Texas would be quite different today. Guns are a losing issue. Even more so than abortion or ‘the gays!’, guns bring single-issue voters out from everywhere.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          61 year ago

          Yes, it was definitely a self-inflicted wound, or maybe a tacit acknowledgement that the campaign was doomed anyway, before the public numbers made it obvious. There is a career path to being on the record with that position, though not in statewide political office in Texas.

          I grew up in Florida and lived most of my adult life in Texas, and guns have always been a presence. I still own several, but they’ve been locked in my father-in-law’s garage for several years now; I’m ambivalent about what to do with them, and I don’t find any joy in “target practice” or fetishizing them as a hobby. Skeet shooting with cheap bird-shot might still be pretty fun, but my single-shot 12ga will be perfectly adequate for that if I ever take it back up.

          Chronic gun violence is a tragic, horrific thing that is a fact of life in the US, which is unique among stable democracies. It should be low-hanging fruit to regulate guns very heavily, but due to weird quirks of history and even fuckin’ grammar, it’s not. The only solace is that while gun violence in this country should be near zero, like it is in almost every other stable country in the world, it’s not actually a daily threat for most people. It’s a statistically significant cause of death for people who shouldn’t normally be dying, but it’s possible to overstate the impact of the actual numbers. It’s still rare, though unlike the other equally rare things on the list (e.g. cancer, heart attacks), it’s completely preventable, in theory, and therefore even sadder and more frustrating.

          So theory is nice, but the history and legal framework around guns in this country means anything beyond baby steps is a political nonstarter and very nearly as hard as “curing cancer”. While I acknowledge it literally costs lives not to act, it will cost more, including more from gun violence, over the medium term, to campaign in ways that lose close elections to people who would love to dismantle the already inadequate social safety net and encourage “old timey” open racists and even worse foreign policy than we have now. Those who feel passionately about guns should not be silent, but if you’re running a surprisingly competitive campaign in a stubbornly red state, you should consider the political implications before committing to unrealistic goals that piss off people who could be persuaded to vote for you if they don’t think guns are your priority.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            71 year ago

            in almost every other stable country in the world

            Yeah, except that’s also not the US.

            The other stable countries in the world have things like much lower rates of income inequality, single-payer health care, solid funding for education at all levels so that people aren’t going into eye-watering levels of debt, and so on. And the countries that do suck in many of the same ways that the US does also have staggeringly high rates of violent crime in general, if not an significant gun crime.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              61 year ago

              Yeah, this is something I stand firmly behind. Fundamentally, our issue is social and cultural. We are armed, and so when we lash out, that has greater impact.

              That doesn’t mean we should disarm. We are armed for good reason. But we should address the underlying cultural issues.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            4
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            in theory,

            Communism works… in theory. your entire argument works… in theory.

            Reality is much different.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        It is my CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to own a ROCKET LAUNCHER! You CAN’T Discriminate between Firearms! Also TRANS PEOPLE shouldn’t get Free Speech!

  • ✺roguetrick✺
    link
    fedilink
    11 year ago

    I honestly don’t think action matters as much as magazine size. You could build a high capacity lever action and rack up one hell of a body count.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    211 year ago

    If only Americans could be like the Swiss, y’all could have your guns and none of the problems.

    • Talaraine
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      Are we reading the same link?

      A person in violation of the prohibitions will be assessed a first-time penalty of $250,000 and $500,000 for each subsequent violation.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          It might refer out to an already existing class of punishment. I will admit I don’t have the time to read it right now to see if that’s the case. I am severely disappointed though if it’s not actually all semi-auto weapons. Trying to divide military from civilian semi-auto rifles is ridiculous.

        • Talaraine
          link
          fedilink
          8
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          I read the link you posted, and is the summary of the actual text of the bill inaccurate? Not even trying to argue.

          • BlackRing
            link
            fedilink
            41 year ago

            I’m more concerned that something that important is only in the summary. Either I don’t understand how bills are written, granted in a state I don’t live in, or the text was changed but the summary not?

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      41 year ago

      In 2014 there was this guy in Taiwan that started mass knifing people in the MRT Train station. The MOST he was able to stab was 22 people and killed 4.

      He actually had to sit down to rest before continuing to stab people because he was tired. In a documentary, he trained for months to have the stamina to maximize kills. It would be different if he had a handgun let alone a AR-15.

      Taiwan is a total ban for all guns.

      Seems like your stupid comment backfired.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        And a Uyghur in mainland China got 26, including killing four officers armed with automatic rifles (and this incident immediately preceded China throwing that part of their population into camps and ramping up their oppression against minority groups).

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          1
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Exactly, 25 is actually impressive. Imagine having to chase down 25 people. I would have given up after a couple. With an AR-15, they wouldn’t even need to look at the faces of the people they are killing, like that Vegas shooter in the hotel. Fucking cowards.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      51 year ago

      I imagine there’d be discussion regarding how we might restrict a person’s ability to publicly and freely stab multiple people ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

      Which is the correct course of action. People should not be allowed to murder people, and things should be done to make it harder to do.

      • fiend_unpleasant ☑️
        link
        fedilink
        11 year ago

        how about just prosecute the crime that is already happening? I mean murder is a crime. The most used murder weapon is a screwdriver. Should we also ban those?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          Prosecution isn’t a preventative measure. It’s reactionary. A society should have some degree of foresight.

          There’s nothing indicating we can’t design a less lethal screwdriver. I have the sneaking suspicion that screwdriver murders aren’t happening in public spaces as frequently as private ones, so there’s room for discussion on how we ought to reduce someone’s capacity for murder with one. I’m concerned that you think this is a ridiculous notion, as though a society has no choice but to allow murderers free reign over others. It’s a limited frame of mind, and nothing would ever be done about anything. I understand that that’s essentially what the idea is with gun control, but I disagree with it for many reasons.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    341 year ago

    This will never get past the Supreme Court because it is blatantly unconstitutional.

    Nice job wasting money posturing for your base, colorado democrats.

    You’re just like the grifters in florida.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        51 year ago

        Yeah I definitely remember the words “smoothbore musket” in the 2A. People thinking this law is a good idea have huge “but I love my local PD, they’re so helpful and I never get so much as a ticket, just flirt a little” energy.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    10
    edit-2
    1 year ago

    I feel like a better option here would be limits on magazine capacities. Limiting internal and box magazine capacities to 5-10 rounds on semiautomatic firearms could have the same effect without it being an outright ban. Maybe have different capacities for handguns and rifles.

    This is just more ammo (heh) for 2nd Amendment voters. Being a bit more clever about it could convince some of them to drop their resistance.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        Yeah, CA’s law has twice been overturned by federal judges (but is being allowed to stay in effect for now) and is on its way to the SC.

  • Roflmasterbigpimp
    link
    fedilink
    51 year ago

    I first read they ban semiautomatic fire alarms, and was wondering why and what even a semiautomatic fire alarm is

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      An electronic voice:

      Stupid human - your building seems to be burning. May I sound the alarm now?

      How about now?

      Perhaps before you die of smoke inhalation, then?

      Hello?

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    41 year ago

    If you read this, after this is struck down i want you to remember this bill the next time you read about another mass shooting. I know youre numb to them but realize they arent normal for developed countries.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    41 year ago

    Cool.

    Now pass some laws banning hate speech, and regulate what religions can and can’t talk about; the pope has no business saying that transgender ideology is sinful! While they’re at it, they should make sure that criminal defendants are required to confess if they have committed a crime, and it would probably be a lot easier to just forbid lawyers from working with people charged with crimes. Oh, and ban pot and booze, since those and TikTok are going to be the downfall of the youth.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        111 year ago

        The goal isn’t to beat the cops. It’s to defend against neonazis.

        Do you think the cops are gonna disarm neonazis? Or will they just use gun bans as an excuse to murder more black people?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          71 year ago

          Guns dont defend shit. We have all the guns, its not going well. A gun ban at least slows down supply. And starts a long path to becoming like developed countries that arent murderous gun nuts like we are.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            6
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Tell you what. How about you pass a law to disarm people based on their hateful ideologies FIRST. Make Nazism illegal, then disarm, prosecute, and imprison the neonazis, by force of law. They are currently trying to ignite a new Civil War against America, yet you want to disarm the rest of us in the face of that.

            Fix that, then we can discuss disarming law abiding citizens.

            You gonna address the question I asked? Cops only use gun bans as an excuse to kill more black people.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                31 year ago

                Like I’m in a different category than the Nazis, who rounded up and murdered Communists and Trade Unionists during the Holocaust.

                Read a book dude. History is well-documented.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  2
                  edit-2
                  1 year ago

                  And yet you downvoted the suggestion of making Nazism illegal. You’ve read books, and despite that, still thought that banning Nazism was a bad idea.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              21 year ago

              I could go for a law that states something like:

              To the degree that you attempt to control or suppress another person or group, you may be controlled or suppressed accordingly.

              This is magical law, but we may as well make it mundane law, too.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              51 year ago

              Imagine trusting a neoliberal government to take the guns away from those leftists deem dangerous. You really don’t see how that might go awry?

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              I think youd have a hard time defining and identifying nazis in legal terms.

              And i dont trust any gun owner to be a law abiding citizen, we’re all animals that can get very emotional. And we have the results of that in our horrendous homicide rate.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                5
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Really? Because Germany managed it. Nazism is illegal there. They prosecute anyone who professes Nazi ideas. I don’t care how hard it would be. You think confiscating all the guns is easier?

                I don’t care who you trust. I care that this nation is too foolish and cowardly to root out the cancer it has harbored since long before it was founded. Ban sympathy for the Confederacy. Ban Nazi ideology. Prosecute those who profess it. Ruin those who fund them. Cleanse the police departments of all the Nazi cops. We will never be free of them until the day we make their ideologies illegal.

                Until then, piss off trying to disarm the millions of people who only wish to defend their homes from exactly those people pushing for civil war.

                Gee whiz, you sure don’t want to address the fact that cops only use gun bans as an excuse to murder black people.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  just a heads up, west germany famously integrated nazis into the government and still has them to this day.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  I would love to do how Germany does, no one gets a gun.

                  Most of their nazi ban entails antisemitism, which i dont think covers a lot of people you wouldnt want to have guns. It also entails self labeling nazis, people wearing nazi uniforms, using swastikas, etc. Again, i dont think thats gonna cover most of the people youd want it to. Its better than nothing and id support it here, but its not gonna be very effective at keeping guns away from people with various nazi beliefs.

                  Gee whiz, you sure don’t want to address the fact that cops only use gun bans as an excuse to murder black people.

                  What gun bans?

            • bufalo1973
              link
              fedilink
              31 year ago

              There a better way: if you don’t have a valid reason* to have a gun, you can’t have it. If you have a valid reason* but not to carry it, you can’t carry it and you can only use it in a target range.

              • Hunting, basically.
          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            101 year ago

            It’s going better here than it is in Myanmar or Gaza.

            How’s that weapons ban going for Gaza?

        • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)
          link
          fedilink
          English
          5
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          Do you think the cops are gonna disarm neonazis? Or will they just use gun bans as an excuse to murder more black people?

          You think black people with firearms are less likely to be shot by police?

          The goal isn’t to beat the cops. It’s to defend against neonazis.

          How’s that going? Because from the outside, it looks like this.

          image

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            8
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            Do you not think cops are more likely to kill black people if there’s a gun ban regardless whether they are armed?

            Yes, I’m well aware of how it looks. They are trying to use public massacres to ignite a civil war. Of course it’s horrible.

            And yet we do almost nothing to prosecute their talking heads who incite those same shootings and the billionaires who fund their rallies. Because hate speech is still somehow free speech. We need to clean up the loopholes in the first amendment before addressing the second.

            Trump is campaigning to become the next fuhrer, not president, yet you dingalings are bound and determined to make sure that we’re disarmed in advance. How stupid is that?

            • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)
              link
              fedilink
              English
              61 year ago

              Do you not think cops are more likely to kill black people if there’s a gun ban regardless whether they are armed?

              That’s some wicked grammar there, but… no? Why would the cops kill less black people if specific firearms are banned?

              They are trying to use school shootings to ignite a civil war.

              What?

              Also, I feel Americans need to see this, and maybe consider that all these children dying isn’t necessary for their hobby or ‘self defense’ claims:

              USA has eight times the rate (as in percentage, not total_ of firearms deaths as Canada, which has more strict firearms rules. Canada has one-hundred times the rate of firearms deaths of the UK, which has more strict firearms rules.

              That means the USA has 800 times the rare of firearms deaths as the UK. So when this mysterious ‘civil war’ happens, how many children will have died so that you can have that semi-auto AR-15 to fight off the drones of the American military, or the armoured vehicles of your cops?

              Instead of pretending One Man With A Gun is going to do something, maybe try voting locally. Maybe try de-arming your cops?

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                101 year ago

                Instead of pretending One Man With A Gun is going to do something

                I used to agree with this train of thought, why be armed when the government has tanks?

                But the realities of the past several years have shown us that an armed rebellion can be significantly more powerful. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, look at Myanmar today where the rebel groups are literally 3D printing carbines. A guerilla group with small arms can put serious pressure on a modern military. Will lots of them die? Probably. Will they “win”? Probably not, but they could easily wear down the enemy with attrition. When you need to move a couple dozen men with rifles it’s an entirely different game than coordinating 12 tanks and 500 men, you can employ completely different tactics. Especially on your home turf that you know inside and out.

                Is an armed rebellion happening anytime soon? I sure hope not. But the threat that an armed populace can at the least put some serious hurt on a military/government is a deterrent to tyranny. Just the possibility of it is a huge deterrent, compared to authoritarian countries where citizens aren’t armed and get run over by tanks.

                I’m not saying gun violence isn’t a huge problem, but saying armed citizenry is zero deterrent is just factually untrue.

                • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  61 year ago

                  But the realities of the past several years have shown us that an armed rebellion can be significantly more powerful. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, look at Myanmar today where the rebel groups are literally 3D printing carbines.

                  Couple things, but mostly: 1. How free are people in Iraq and Afghanistan, exactly? 2. Rebel groups are illegally printing carbines. The legality of it is meaningless. They aren’t taking on the US military on it’s own soil.

                  If you guys are saying that making death-by-gun the most common form of death for children in the USA, even above cars is worth it for some maybe-one-day-we’ll-be-a-militia-group seems like the most sad and specious logic I’ve ever heard. I’m a parent and theoretically fighting some imaginary war (which we’ve been hearing about for decade after decade…) takes a definite backseat to my kids making it through school un-shot-at.

                  And virtually every armed rebellion that worked happened in a nation where firearms were heavily restricted, so the laws are meaningless. Hell you could only own a smoothbore shotgun at most in the soviet union, and last I checked a whole bunch of those countries had armed rebellions.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                6
                edit-2
                1 year ago

                Yes. Cops have always used gun bans as an excuse to kill more black people, regardless whether or not they are armed.

                Yes. They are trying to use school shootings to ignite a civil war. It’s in their manifestos they leave behind. They say so on their forums. The same talking heads who formented the insurrection are same ones who encourage incels to commit public massacres, then deny all culpability immediately after. They even claim the shootings never happened.

                • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  Yes. They are trying to use school shootings to ignite a civil war. It’s in their manifestos they leave behind. They say so on their forums. The same talking heads who formented the insurrection are same ones who encourage incels to commit public massacres, then deny all culpability immediately after. They even claim the shootings never happened.

                  You think this is a push, from the NRA amongst others, to get people to… ban specific firearms? How exactly does banning semi-auto firearms prevent your Totally-Going-To-Work-Later uprising?

                  [Because congratulations, your efforts to keep your firearms only cost the lives of 4,357 children (ages 1-19 years old) in the U.S. in 2020.

                  By comparison, motor-vehicle deaths accounted for 4,112 deaths in that age range.](https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/03/29/guns-leading-deaths-children-us/)

            • TSG_Asmodeus (he, him)
              link
              fedilink
              English
              51 year ago

              Where did I say that?

              And none of these We Need Our Guns For Defense! comments are address that the main cause of death of your children is firearms. How many children have to die to prevent this theoretical tyrannical takeover? Where were all you guys with your guns when a coup was attempted?

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          101 year ago

          Im just always flabbergasted when ever someone thinks theyre keeping the government in line with their civilian arms. Like they suddenly dont know what kinda firepower the US government has.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            131 year ago

            In all fairness, the idea behind an armed resistance to a tyrannical government is not to win, but to make the effort of stamping out resistance so costly that it bleeds them dry. Death by a thousand paper cuts style.

            Not that any of the Rambo wanna-be’s are thinking of that, of course.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            31 year ago

            It’s always obvious when someone has watched every Rambo movie, but has never been within 10 miles of a military base. Good luck to them…

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        221 year ago

        You ever seen cops shoot?

        I’ve seen a bunch of 'em get DQ’d from matches for being unsafe, or drop out when it was clear their scores were trash.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            7
            edit-2
            1 year ago

            They use hacks like ESP and wallhacks.

            In all seriousness, though, it’s only because they always outnumber and have more resources than the person/people that they are in a shootout with. Not because they are better with firearms than an average gun owner who also trains with their firearm.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              41 year ago

              and have more resources than the person/people that they are in a shootout with.

              Yeah, and that’s what you’re up against thinking your guns are keeping the government in check.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                21 year ago

                Not really. At the point where there’s consensus that we are, in fact, in a civil war, then:

                A) you’re not some nutjob holed up in his house using his neighbor as a hostage B) there are others, and organization is doable

                Yes, the government has organization and experience. Hopefully, it’ll just never be an issue. Likely, there would be internal divisions, as well. But being ready for it to be an issue can both help prevent it becoming one, and give one the capacity to have an impact if it does become an issue.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  21 year ago

                  If things get to an actual civil war where tyrannical government is willing to use its resources, i think you are severely underestimating the resources. The satellite and drone intel, the ability to destroy routes civilian vehicles can take, the aerial strikes. Civilians arent gonna get together no matter the heads they can put together and build competing anti air capabilities. Its not like a battle of damage numbers in a game, its ability to even play the games that they can. Like a well armored knight fighting against squirrels, the numbers dont matter, the little claws cant get through steel.

                  Likely, there would be internal divisions, as well.

                  Thats all you can hope for, thats the only way civilians in any developed country survives:having a government that doesnt want to kill them. Armed population or not, it really has no effect.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                61 year ago

                …And yet, when cops see protestors that are as heavily armed as they are, historically they suddenly get very, very respectful. When the Proud Man-Children discover that the BLM protestors are armed and disciplined, they suddenly lose all their courage. Cops suddenly get really, really nervous when they realize that if they start shit, they aren’t going to have a numerical advantage. When you’ve got one suspect and 20 cops though?

                Cops aren’t there to protect or serve the people; they’re there to protect and serve the status quo.

                But damn, people sure do hop on cops’ dicks whenever someone says they might want to be able to protect themselves rather than hoping that cops will do it.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  51 year ago

                  Gun grabbers will say they don’t trust police and then say they’re the only ones who should be armed in the same paragraph. It’s wild.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  31 year ago

                  I think most examples of armed protests in the US are on the side of police. But US police are also an example of America’s problem with too many guns, they kill way too many people and should also have fewer guns.

  • Neato
    link
    fedilink
    English
    291 year ago

    This still allows bolt action for hunting, revolvers and shotguns for defense. That should be plenty. If you’re spraying a dozen+ rounds in your own home for defense you’re more of a danger than an intruder at that point.

    Democrats last year passed and Polis signed into law four less-expansive gun control bills. Those included raising the age for buying any gun from 18 to 21; establishing a three-day waiting period between the purchase and receipt of a gun; strengthening the state’s red flag law; and rolling back some legal protections for the firearms industry, exposing it to lawsuits from the victims of gun violence.

    Common-sense gun regulation.

    Republicans decried the legislation as an onerous encroachment on the U.S. Constitution’s Second Amendment. They argued that mental illness and people who do not value life — not guns — are the issues that should be addressed. People with ill intent can use other weapons, such as knives, to harm others, they argued.

    Lol. And yet healthcare is something Republicans fight against constantly. And “people who do not value life” is great from the forced-birth and no social safety nets crowd.

    Democrats responded that semiautomatic weapons can cause much more damage in a short period of time.

    Exactly. If you’re incredibly viscous and lucky you can get a lot of people, but rarely double digits with a hand-held blade. With a semi-automatic rifle you can get dozens with someone untrained. And we’ve seen it happen. Multiple times.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        31 year ago

        I fundamentally don’t understand the fixation on pistol grips and thumb holes and threaded barrels. At least they left that last one off for shotguns.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      21 year ago

      This still allows bolt action for hunting

      Do you honestly believe bolt-action is adequate for hunting?

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        11 year ago

        If you need more than one shot in under a second you are a shit hunter and need to get back to the range.

        People bow hunt and hunted that way for hundreds of years.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          11 year ago

          People normally don’t bow hunt dangerous game, they bow hunt animals like deer and elk. Most hunters wouldn’t use a bow to hunt boars.

          People also used lead plumbing for hundreds of years. Doesn’t mean we shouldn’t use modern alternatives.

          • Neato
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Most people don’t hunt dangerous game. Why the fuck are you wanting to bear hunt? Get real and leave that to the wardens.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              11 year ago

              I was talking about animals like moose and boar, but people do hunt bears. Legally. It doesn’t sound like you know anything about hunting.

              • Neato
                link
                fedilink
                English
                11 year ago

                Let rangers deal with large animals.

                If you need multiple shots for a boar, you’re fucking up. Go back to the range.

                Really now, this is pathetic. Get back inside and let real hunters work. And stop trophy hunting FFS.

                • @[email protected]
                  link
                  fedilink
                  11 year ago

                  Let rangers deal with large animals.

                  If the rangers want to sell licenses to hunt mountain lions and bears, who am I to tell them they’re wrong? Stay in your lane.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      251 year ago

      Not really what this post is about, but can we get rid of the “common sense gun laws” mantra already? It’s implying that anyone who disagrees with it, for ANY reason, doesn’t have common sense. It’s not good for having a meaningful discussion on how we can work together to deal with this problem.

      Personally, I don’t think guns are the underlying issue here. While I am not against regulation, I think plenty of events show that without firearms tragedies will still occur. So it would only be a small part of preventing these sort of events.

      Gun culture is a major issue, even beyond the guns themselves. “Come and take em” and “fuck around and find out” are symptoms of a mentality that guns are a solution to solving problems that’s on par with discussion, leaving, or de-escalating. When ultimately, guns are the final answer that should only be used when all other options have been exhausted.

      Socioeconomic pressures and inequality issues need to be addressed to deal with most gun crimes, since mass shootings are the minority cases in which gun deaths occur. Yes, when they happen they are atrocious and make headlines and everyone hears and talks about it, but when people are dieing literally every day from guns we can’t only focus on the events that catch media attention.

      Mental health, and by extension, all health needs to be made a priority. Suicides by guns is by and far the most common method.

      Media needs to stop stoking fear and divisiveness. We see too often than someone reacts with extreme actions to perceived threats that aren’t really there. They’ve been primed to be afraid ALL THE TIME. So when someone knocks at the wrong door or uses their driveway to turn around they violent “protect” themselves from a threat that never existed.

      Stop the worshipping of property. It is NEVER worth the taking of life to protect property. This goes back to gun culture where people believe that using a gun to protect their own shit is somehow a valid solution. This also extends to the police. Fuck them for violently protecting property over people.

      Fix the police problem. At the very least, teach them fucking patience. At every point they try to end a non-violent interaction as fast as possible that they are often the ones to escalate to violence. Unless someone’s life is directly and immediately threatened, chill the fuck out.

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        41 year ago

        Personally, I don’t think guns are the underlying issue here. While I am not against regulation, I think plenty of events show that without firearms tragedies will still occur

        Yes but it’s literally the magnitude of it, which I covered.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      151 year ago

      They specifically banned the rifle I like shooting: Daniel Defense M4A1.

      Guns aren’t just for hunting or defense. I wasn’t on board until I went to the range. I’m now a fan of rifles.

      I’m not a huge fan of California spec rifles. Unless you buy multiple mags, switching out is a pain.

      Now what WOULD be neat, is if I could buy the rifle and then purchase a magazine of ammo at the range, returning the magazine and unspent ammo at the counter

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        31 year ago

        Guns aren’t just for hunting or defense. I wasn’t on board until I went to the range. I’m now a fan of rifles.

        I’m going to say that hobbies are less important than public safety.

        I do agree with your notion about restricting ammo. I believe Switzerland does that. We’d also need to restrict ammo components because otherwise you’d just have people reloading (making bullets) at home.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          I don’t know why you’re being downvoted. We basically agreed, except for I advocated for handing magazines and rounds back into the range and you didn’t think I did.

          While I agree that safety is more important than hobbies and if they cannot coexist, I would choose safety; however I believe in this instance that they can

    • Pistcow
      link
      fedilink
      81 year ago

      And that’s why I appendix carry a S&W 500. One shot, anywhere in meat, is a show stopper.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        21 year ago

        At $2/rd for a kinda rare $2,000 gun, I’d rather throw literal money at assailants harassing me.

        • Pistcow
          link
          fedilink
          31 year ago

          Try $3-5 a round, but yeah, throwing quarters might be as effective.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        81 year ago

        For those wondering, the second sentence, while unnecessarily explicit, is accurate. This gun is a revolver and would not be impacted by this law.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      151 year ago

      I would argue that hunting, defense, and sport are not reasons we have the right to bear arms. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government.

      • Neato
        link
        fedilink
        English
        111 year ago

        Its to overthrow a tyrannical government.

        It’s actually to have well-armed militias at the state level. Individuals, unorganized will have no chance to overthrow any government. Hence the militia part.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          21 year ago

          “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” verbatim text, the state ≠ the people. I’m sure the British thought the same thing when a rebellious colony started to fight.

          • Neato
            link
            fedilink
            English
            11 year ago

            Read the rest of it, not just the parts you like. This isn’t the Bible.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          9
          edit-2
          1 year ago

          The problem with that is that’s putting a lot of faith in the state both not being just a tool of the tyrannical government, or the state not being tyrannical themselves, which is why i support a more granular right to bear arms. But you are right that was the plain intention for the second amendment.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        41 year ago

        We’ve seen 2 attempts to overthrow the federal government. 1 in the 1860s and 1 in 2020. Neither time was the government acting tyrannically. Neither time did it work. Neither time did guns help. Maybe guns aren’t the answer to that problem, either.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          91 year ago

          Then it’s not protected/covered by the second amendment. The tyrannical qualifier prevents it from covering baseless coups. But there was a reason it was put in due to the harsh lessons learned from the revolutionary war.

          I may reconsider my position on the second amendment if you can convince me that the government or the local police will not become tyrannical, ever…

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            21 year ago

            I might change my position on the 2nd Amendment if you can show me that access to so many guns prevents a government from ever becoming tyrannical. So far, that access has only made society itself tyrannical and given the police all the excuse they needed to be able to use tanks, APCs, and other military equipment against us.

            • @[email protected]
              link
              fedilink
              English
              3
              edit-2
              1 year ago

              I mean, usually a rebellion against a government success is tied to its access to weaponry. I don’t know a single rebellion against tyranny that was successful without weapons.

              I am for more regulations because obviously we got a massive problem here. but with my primary point being what i said above, how do you decide who can’t have a weapon without the government ultimately deciding who can have a gun, which defeats the purpose of having the right in the first place.

              I was thinking about leaning into the militias where you have to be sponsored by a group that could have their rights to guns withdrawn as a whole when they foster a bad actor, to make sponsorships harder and to have a pressure to maintain connections with people and when someone starts throwing red flags or ghosting, there is a group with a vested interest to start interventions. But then there is the tricky bit of taking the guns when it’s time to enforce anything, still has the government choosing who can be armed. So i still am stuck.

              That being said i don’t have a weapon.