CO Bill to ban Semi rifles and shotguns moves to senate floor.

[bayoublaster7527]

The democrats clearly have no desire to win any elections.

Drop the fight with the second amendment, move on to universal healthcare, including mental health care, increasing minimum wage, protecting public lands, you know doing something for the working class.

This kind of crap is not a mandate or a platform that will work.

This vice chair decision is idiotic.

You’re absolutely right. To be fair there are plenty of Dem officials saying exactly the same thing as you, get back to middle America, kitchen table issues. Question is whether the leadership will listen.

Both parties can be guilty of becoming too beholden to special interests, whether that is corporate entities or social advocacy groups.

 

[tormenter]

They literally have no idea. Our mental giant Congresswoman DeGette told everyone a few years ago that banning the sale of magazines would mean eventually they would all go away, because after you shoot the ammo you have to throw the magazine away! It would've taken her approximately 2 minutes on Wikipedia to understand the fundamentals, but actually familiarizing herself with the issue would've been too much work! These are the people who write the laws that we have to abide by...

I remember that, and yet she still won the next election quite handily.

If you voted for her and are a gun owner - please let me know why! it doesn't have to be public, you can private message me.

 

[Mudranger1]

Still waiting for one post addressing how this is any threat to hunting. That is what I call bullchit on. It is disingenuous to trot out 2A and ignore the first 4 words. A well regulated militia. Gun laws are regulations to this nonexistent militia. No bazookas, special license for full auto, felons can't have guns. The argument here is about what regulations to have, SCOTUS already upheld that regulations are legal. Moves to divest federal lands, those are a direct threat to hunting. This bill is not. Where oh where is the threat to hunting? Oh, you thought you saw it behind the curtain. If you live and die by SCOTUS, they have already declined to review this law in several states. If passed, it will stand in CO on precedent, unless SCOTUS runs short of toilet paper that day. See Roe V. Wade.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of Columbia V. HELLER, 2008

Want data, such as the fact that 85% of mass casualty deaths in 'Merica resulted from use of semiauto weapons w high capacity removeable mags? Look here, US gov't website: Oopsie, it disappeared last week!
View attachment 359622
National Institute of Justice (.gov)
https://nij.ojp.gov › topics › articles › public-mass-shooti...


No information is available for this page.
View attachment 359623

This page along with thousands of others reporting data we taxpayers paid to have researched and reported, was ordered CENSORED by the ass-clown-in-chief.
View attachment 359624


Know what Amendment comes before 2A?
View attachment 359625
Like it or not, this also applies to the Despot-in-Chief. Which he just violated.

i'm not saying in the grand scheme this law will touch hunting as is. but what about the browning BAR semi auto? now would be illegal? I know out west probably 90% use bolt action guns but still there are those that do not

 

[Cogreeny]

Still waiting for one post addressing how this is any threat to hunting. That is what I call bullchit on. It is disingenuous to trot out 2A and ignore the first 4 words. A well regulated militia. Gun laws are regulations to this nonexistent militia. No bazookas, special license for full auto, felons can't have guns. The argument here is about what regulations to have, SCOTUS already upheld that regulations are legal. Moves to divest federal lands, those are a direct threat to hunting. This bill is not. Where oh where is the threat to hunting? Oh, you thought you saw it behind the curtain. If you live and die by SCOTUS, they have already declined to review this law in several states. If passed, it will stand in CO on precedent, unless SCOTUS runs short of toilet paper that day. See Roe V. Wade.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of Columbia V. HELLER, 2008

Want data, such as the fact that 85% of mass casualty deaths in 'Merica resulted from use of semiauto weapons w high capacity removeable mags? Look here, US gov't website: Oopsie, it disappeared last week!
View attachment 359622
National Institute of Justice (.gov)
https://nij.ojp.gov › topics › articles › public-mass-shooti...


No information is available for this page.
View attachment 359623

This page along with thousands of others reporting data we taxpayers paid to have researched and reported, was ordered CENSORED by the ass-clown-in-chief.
View attachment 359624


Know what Amendment comes before 2A?
View attachment 359625
Like it or not, this also applies to the Despot-in-Chief. Which he just violated.

This is how I picture you with the bullshit you say. Am I close?

 

[Oak]

I remember that, and yet she still won the next election quite handily.

DeGette's district:

 

[SFC B]

Still waiting for one post addressing how this is any threat to hunting. That is what I call bullchit on. It is disingenuous to trot out 2A and ignore the first 4 words. A well regulated militia. Gun laws are regulations to this nonexistent militia. No bazookas, special license for full auto, felons can't have guns. The argument here is about what regulations to have, SCOTUS already upheld that regulations are legal. Moves to divest federal lands, those are a direct threat to hunting. This bill is not. Where oh where is the threat to hunting? Oh, you thought you saw it behind the curtain. If you live and die by SCOTUS, they have already declined to review this law in several states. If passed, it will stand in CO on precedent, unless SCOTUS runs short of toilet paper that day. See Roe V. Wade.

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. [It is] not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.”

Justice Antonin Scalia

District of Columbia V. HELLER, 2008

Want data, such as the fact that 85% of mass casualty deaths in 'Merica resulted from use of semiauto weapons w high capacity removeable mags? Look here, US gov't website: Oopsie, it disappeared last week!
View attachment 359622
National Institute of Justice (.gov)
https://nij.ojp.gov › topics › articles › public-mass-shooti...


No information is available for this page.
View attachment 359623

This page along with thousands of others reporting data we taxpayers paid to have researched and reported, was ordered CENSORED by the ass-clown-in-chief.
View attachment 359624


Know what Amendment comes before 2A?
View attachment 359625
Like it or not, this also applies to the Despot-in-Chief. Which he just violated.

Believing that the definition/usage of "a regulated militia" in colonial times as compared today doesn't matter is disingenuous. The intent, which should be as clear today as it was then, is to provide the citizens of our country with the ability to stand against tyranny. That included weapons in military usage at the time. The idea that people would not have the ability to have contemporary weapons with which to hunt and feed themselves isn't something the founders could have even thought possible. Myself, like many others in this forum I believe, do use weapons that would fit into this prohibition to hunt various (including big game) species. As a resident of Colorado, given the current and recent political climate, if you would pose that this is not merely another attempt/step to try and prohibit or ridiculously limit the ownership of firearms in general you are either being untruthful with yourself or you are fine with those restrictions but won't come out and say it.

As for any discussion about "casualties" from guns......if anyone is for gun control of ANY sort on that basis but is also not strenuously campaigning against alcohol and abortion they are a clanging gong of hypocrisy. Those are responsible for many multiples more casualties yearly.

 

[WildWill]

Believing that the definition/usage of "a regulated militia" in colonial times as compared today doesn't matter is disingenuous. The intent, which should be as clear today as it was then, is to provide the citizens of our country with the ability to stand against tyranny. That included weapons in military usage at the time. The idea that people would not have the ability to have contemporary weapons with which to hunt and feed themselves isn't something the founders could have even thought possible. Myself, like many others in this forum I believe, do use weapons that would fit into this prohibition to hunt various (including big game) species. As a resident of Colorado, given the current and recent political climate, if you would pose that this is not merely another attempt/step to try and prohibit or ridiculously limit the ownership of firearms in general you are either being untruthful with yourself or you are fine with those restrictions but won't come out and say it.

As for any discussion about "casualties" from guns......if anyone is for gun control of ANY sort on that basis but is also not strenuously campaigning against alcohol and abortion they are a clanging gong of hypocrisy. Those are responsible for many multiples more casualties yearly.