Semiautomatic firearm ban passes Colorado's House, heads to Senate
Semiautomatic firearm ban passes Colorado's House, heads to Senate
Colorado’s Democratic-controlled House has passed a bill that would ban the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms.
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.
You're viewing a single thread.
I'll give up my guns when the cops do it first.
I hope you can fight!
You gonna win a shootout with cops?
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.
they've got a pretty good kda ratio
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
Many, yes. But people on the left are slowly starting to learn the lessons that the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were trying to teach us. (...The lessons that ultimately got Malcolm X killed, IMO.) Groups like the John Brown Gun Clubs are working with and helping to train activists in order to for them to protect themselves from Proud Man-Children, and "Patriot" groups, since cops won't.
Power is never given willingly; power must be taken. The police have power, and asking nicely gets you nothing.
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.
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.
think you are severely underestimating the resources. The satellite and drone intel, …the aerial strikes.
Yeah dude. I don’t think anyone who hasn’t either called in a CAS 9 line, or fought without FW/RW CAS cover really understands the meteoric shift in battlespace domination it brings. Oh cool, you saw some Telegram vids of drones dropping frags on Russians in Ukraine? Good luck doing anything with that when the 2.4Ghz signal used to control your DJI is jammed, an AWACS picks up your wireless emissions and sends your coordinates to a JTAC who confirms your position with his own drone communicating on encrypted channel hopping frequencies that you can’t jam, paints you with a laser your can’t see, then calls in a CAS 9 line on you and you’re getting fucking perforated by a chain gun and some hellfires or just instantly deleted when a FW pastes you with some guided ordinance from somewhere beyond the horizon.
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.
Yup, that’s the unfortunate truth of it.
Air strikes on your own populace? That's a way to build friends.
The whole premise theyre defending is we should have guns to defend against the US government. If the US government actually wanted to kill them, thats what they would be facing.
It totally worked in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The militant forces were completely pacified.
Putting aside the moral legitimacy of a government or a 'rebel' or 'resistance' group:
How does a government determine the difference between an intelligent citizenry that is defending itself in covert guerrilla warfare vs the citizenry that is not doing so?
You're acting like the government could just blow through with tanks and airstrikes, and be done with it all. That's not how a civil war with a mixed population works. As a more extreme example to make it clear, the government could also use nukes on the populace, but would obviously not typically do so, since doing so would involve killing the citizenry it considers legitimate along with those it considers illegitimate, and would cause too much collateral damage.
It's not like any modern rebellion would involve forming lines, having regular meeting spaces, or anything like that. Either the government is reasonable enough that change from within is possible, or it will be fought, in both passive and direct ways, by the populace.
Basically, your reasoning amounts to "being armed wouldn't work, so let's permit a Holocaust, because in the mean time, people are killing each other sometimes", even though this is the safest period in history.
Your current opinion that it's pointless or not possible basically relegates you to the role of being a fascism enabler that's tender to kids. I'd rather fight if needed, but you do you.
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?
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.
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?
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:
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?
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.
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.
I'm not arguing against gun bans because I love guns. I'm arguing against them because humanity has a serious problem with fascism. I'm pointing out that fascists are heavily armed. The cops are almost entirely fascist sympathizers. They selectively enforce gun bans across racial and ideological lines, just like the Nazis did in Germany. They don't take guns away from Nazis. Instead, they use those laws to gun down minorities.
Oh hey, who's that? Why, is that a psychopathic fascist running for president? I wonder what would happen if he won again, and minorities and leftists were selectively disarmed and his neo-nazi followers weren't? But how could that ever happen? Cops are there to protect us from bad guys, right?
Yeah. Violence is generally not the answer. But when it is, it's the only answer.
Compare your image above with something extremely similar happening systematically, over and over and over as a populace is rounded up and shipped off to camps.
It sucks. Both situations suck. But disarming yourself isn't the solution.
Be armed. Be reasonable, and prefer to de-escalate. But also be willing to fight.
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.
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/)
It's not just firearms here, although firearms do admittedly give some fucked up people a voice.
It's the cultural tendency to fuck people up that is the larger issue.
When did I ever say that this is a push from the NRA to get the USA to ban specific firearms?
I said that public massacres are being used by neo-Nazis to attempt to ignite a civil war, where they hope to rule over the ashes. I definitely did not suggest that gun bans would prevent these kinds of uprisings. Quite the opposite.
So, your argument is "just submit and it'll be fine"?
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?
Standing clear of it, waiting for the government to do its job. Which they did, admirably.
So we're agreed, firearms aren't necessary.
Dude, if you're going to try and put words in my mouth, give it half a thought first. That's twice you've demonstrated poor reading comprehension.
Armed citizens are the last necessary defense of the nation. We still had a semi-functioning government, and we had to give it the chance to prove itself still viable. Had it failed, things would have gone very differently.
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.
It’s going better here than it is in Myanmar or Gaza.
How’s that weapons ban going for Gaza?
Ukraine lets their citizens have weapons now too.
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.
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?
I don't see you offering a better suggestion.
I didn't think I needed to state the obvious: armed leftists are much more difficult to oppress.
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.
You actually downvoted the idea of making Nazism illegal. How does that make you feel?
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.
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.
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.
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.
just a heads up, west germany famously integrated nazis into the government and still has them to this day.
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?
Every gun ban we've ever passed.
If you want to ban guns, disarm the Nazis first. That's all I ask.
We dont have any gun bans. The countries that do, like Germany, have a lot less cops killing people, including black people. Im saying a sweeping gun ban takes guns away from more people with nazi ideologies than a ban on just self identifying nazis.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
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.
All I see is you not thinking about anything I've said.
Many countries do almost what I said and are safer that the US by far.
How'd Afghanistan go?
You rooting for the fascists for a reason?
When did that happen?
You called for disarmament of the people, even Marx thought that was a stupid idea
Yeah, most of the least fascist countries in the world dont have very armed people
He's just gonna be a punk to the gangbangers like in El Salvador before the crackdown.
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.
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.
How’d Afghanistan go?
Savage.
The war? Pretty well as far as wars go. Around 20,000 Afghani security forces fatalities, 2,380 US fatalities, and 1,200 other coalition fatalities compared to like 72,000 Taliban and al-Queda fatalities. The Taliban was toppled, and their remnants along with al-Queda were hiding in the mountains and in Pakistan.
The Taliban was also a proper government prior to the invasion, with a standing army and access to munitions beyond small-arms. Even with RPG’s and Igla’s an Apache coming to fuck your shit is terrifying, without them you’ll probably die more comfortably by just pulling the Orc move of jamming your rifle barrel under your chin, waving bye to the drone circling you, and blowing off the top of your skull.
Now if you want to talk about the nation-building aspect of Afghanistan and how that completely disintegrated that’s something else entirely, because yeah that didn’t go too great.
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…
