Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted

[COEngineer]

Was added so that states would be able to defend themselves from a tyrannical federal government, but yes zero to do with hunting.

This is absolutely not true. SCOTUS has ruled very clearly that 2A protects an individual right and it has nothing to do with States.

 

[COEngineer]

No not at all.

I’m saying that the canned response to children being murdered, by most of the folks on “our side”, is tone-deaf and not helpful or personally beneficial.

I would argue that, by being unwilling to have a discussion with people who want to repeal the 2A (that to me is the opposite side of the spectrum from a strict 2A defense) as a result of murder of children, it makes the 2A argument seem heartless and cruel.

It is as if one is saying “oh well, nothing we can do, sorry.” In response to something as horrendous as the murder of a child. It doesn’t fit the situation.

That's because it's such a ridiculous argument. It is exactly like blaming people who drive cars for drunks that kill people while driving. It's not the car's fault or the designer or the manufacturer. It's not the other people who drive cars' fault. No one even has that thought. But when applied to guns, all of a sudden it somehow makes sense to some percentage of people. Probably people that don't see the utility of guns (protecting from tyranny) because it's a nebulous hazard ("it will never happen in our modern society").

 

[Deleted member 28227]

This is absolutely not true. SCOTUS has ruled very clearly that 2A protects an individual right and it has nothing to do with States.

My comment was accurate, I didn't make reference to an individual right. The supreme court has ruled that there is an individual right.

The framers crafted the amendment so that their citizens armed with their own guns could defended the state, you don't have a right to use your arm against any government you feel is tyrannical. I mean I guess you could argue they wanted you to have the means too regardless... but starting a gun fight puts you outside the protection of the law and constitution and you basically have to win your coup or you're going to be charged with insurrection.

My point, the point of the 2A isn't to turn every argument into a gun fight.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Sorry if I don’t have a lot of faith in the system, I just think all too often we treat our diseases with pills and profits rather than cures.

It's a fair point, I agree with you about pills and profits, but there are other alternatives been offered that are shot down. There are a lack of professionals in the field, that number is capped by Medicare and guess who is opposed expanding it...

Then go on to say ahh it’s all good, I know the sheriff, he’s not gonna enforce the law passed by the legislature aka “democracy”.

Oh he's going to enforce the law, I'm just not going to shoot him for doing his job, that was my point.

It’s honestly hilarious whenever anyone suggests you might not trust the government at full face value as advertised, that you immediately get labeled some right wing nutjob, Fox News watching, etc etc.

I label folks as nut jobs when there response to fixing a complex problem is, F-it lets start shooting and/or making wild statements (not quoting you, but it's out there) that the "liberals" are going to put you into concentration camps.

Look the vegans who don't want you to kill the cute deer don't own guns, they aren't going to attack you, they definitely will vote against you. In terms of violent force you will likely win, you can break the government, but then what turn it into a fascist state? It's not going back to democracy, because you choose to blow that up.

 

[Deleted member 18333]

It's a fair point, I agree with you about pills and profits, but there are other alternatives been offered that are shot down. There are a lack of professionals in the field, that number is capped by Medicare and guess who is opposed expanding it...

Is Medicare expansion opposed because the folks voting in opposition don't want to increase the the number of professionals in the field or because a bunch of other items get rolling into Medicare expansion that they may oppose? Not a smart ass response from me, I genuinely don't know and could not find anything specific to blocking an increase in mental health professional.

 

[LWC55]

I label folks as nut jobs when there response to fixing a complex problem is, F-it lets start shooting and/or making wild statements (not quoting you, but it's out there) that the "liberals" are going to put you into concentration camps.

Look the vegans who don't want you to kill the cute deer don't own guns, they aren't going to attack you, they definitely will vote against you. In terms of violent force you will likely win, you can break the government, but then what turn it into a fascist state? It's not going back to democracy, because you choose to blow that up.

I think we should stop using labels meant to keep Americans divided and from seeing the big picture. Everyone in the know knows that it is the elite "lizard" WEF folks that ultimately want to take our guns and put citizens in concentration camps.

 

[Doublecluck]

It's a fair point, I agree with you about pills and profits, but there are other alternatives been offered that are shot down. There are a lack of professionals in the field, that number is capped by Medicare and guess who is opposed expanding it...


Oh he's going to enforce the law, I'm just not going to shoot him for doing his job, that was my point.


I label folks as nut jobs when there response to fixing a complex problem is, F-it lets start shooting and/or making wild statements (not quoting you, but it's out there) that the "liberals" are going to put you into concentration camps.

Look the vegans who don't want you to kill the cute deer don't own guns, they aren't going to attack you, they definitely will vote against you. In terms of violent force you will likely win, you can break the government, but then what turn it into a fascist state? It's not going back to democracy, because you choose to blow that up.

I don’t want to blow anything up. I don’t believe that the government is accountable to the people, it’s corrupted by money. It’s very nefarious in nature. I don’t have faith in that dynamic solving the problems. Forgive me if I’m skeptical, we spend more on healthcare and education than many countries and looking at the scoreboard we aren’t exactly winning. It seems reasonable to question adding more of what’s not working.

I know of some vegans that are far more scary than any the tacticool crowd I’ve run across.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Is Medicare expansion opposed because the folks voting in opposition don't want to increase the the number of professionals in the field or because a bunch of other items get rolling into Medicare expansion that they may oppose? Not a smart ass response from me, I genuinely don't know and could not find anything specific to blocking an increase in mental health professional.

There are various types of mental health professionals, we don't have enough of any of them, each type is limited by various ways.

As far as Psychiatry, you are an MD. the number of new MDs trained is set by congress via the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, CMS. CMS provides payments to hospitals for residents, and is capped. Funding was frozen in 1996. Since then a bill to increase those numbers has been introduced in every session of congress since 2007 and has been defeated.

In 2019 the Resident Physician Shortage Reduction Act was proposed which would have added 3,000 slots and allowed CMS to say which states and areas they go to... essentially to bolster rural area shortages. That got killed.

There is also a compounding factor that because of how our system is setup, student loans/insurance payments/ etc MDs are driven to certain area of medicine which make a ton of money. Psychiatry is one of the lowest ones.

I'm sure counseling, psychology, etc all have different yet similar under funding stories and recruitment issues.

Are a bunch of other items included, they weren't on the 2019 bill.

Point being is the "fix" is probably a ton of small fixes all over the place not one big bill and when you elect folks whose only goal is to stop anything from being done... well you get what you voted for...

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I don’t want to blow anything up. I don’t believe that the government is accountable to the people, it’s corrupted by money. It’s very nefarious in nature. I don’t have faith in that dynamic solving the problems. Forgive me if I’m skeptical, we spend more on healthcare and education than many countries and looking at the scoreboard we aren’t exactly winning. It seems reasonable to question adding more of what’s not working.

Funny how the winning countries you note all have single payer and free post grad education

 

[LWC55]

Funny how the winning countries you note all have single payer and free post grad education

Which countries are those?

 

[Doublecluck]

Funny how the winning countries you note all have single payer and free post grad education

Switzerland?

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

Here's what the US can learn from Switzerland, which has nearly eliminated mass shootings while maintaining a high rate of gun ownership.

www.businessinsider.com

 

[Slowdog225]

Link to tweet with draft bill below. Hopefully ok? RMGO is not high on my list. Neither are these bills.

https://twitter.com/x/status/1611843498264924160

Our new wanna be “ politicians“ here in Michigan have decided to come out with several anti-gun anti-Second Amendment bills. Trying to outlaw modern day semi automatic rifles and shotguns. Anything that takes a box magazine because it could be modified to take more than a 10 round magazine even though we don’t have a magazine limit in Michigan. When this came up we were looking to move to Colorado but now that’s not looking like a good idea either.

 

[COEngineer]

My comment was accurate, I didn't make reference to an individual right. The supreme court has ruled that there is an individual right.

The framers crafted the amendment so that their citizens armed with their own guns could defended the state, you don't have a right to use your arm against any government you feel is tyrannical. I mean I guess you could argue they wanted you to have the means too regardless... but starting a gun fight puts you outside the protection of the law and constitution and you basically have to win your coup or you're going to be charged with insurrection.

My point, the point of the 2A isn't to turn every argument into a gun fight.

View attachment 260269

I believe you are still fundamentally wrong. The framers and SCOTUS believe(d) that the individual right is there for you and me to protect our family and home and, when needed, to fight tyranny. It doesn't mean that every time we lose a vote on an issue, we can 'legally' start shooting. It means that when things have gone too far, the People have the ability to fight the government, whatever government entity needs to be fought. It has nothing to do with States or Feds or any other jurisdiction.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Switzerland?

Switzerland has a stunningly high rate of gun ownership — here's why it doesn't have mass shootings

Here's what the US can learn from Switzerland, which has nearly eliminated mass shootings while maintaining a high rate of gun ownership.

www.businessinsider.com

Scandanavia mostly + a lot of Europe, was strictly in response to driving down the cost of healthcare. A number of countries have done it successfully but any attempts to modify our system are shut down with someone screaming socialism.

Personally I don't think single payer solves guns, but if folks think "it's all a mental health problem" then they need to back that with literally any solution.

Doing nothing is a choice and my point is it seems like gun owners are making the active choice to do nothing across the board.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

I believe you are still fundamentally wrong.

Seems like you just rephrased my comment...

Either we agree or you're making a straw man argument.

 

[Nick87]

Signed into law yesterday.

These are the guns and attachments affected by the assault weapon ban in Illinois

The law will allow gun owners to keep the guns they have now, but will require them to register them with the state.

www.ksdk.com

Yup I'm out of town and just saw that. I fell safer already Dave watch the shootings in Chicago plummet.

 

[DouglasR]

Yup I'm out of town and just saw that. I fell safer already Dave watch the shootings in Chicago plummet.

These are the rules now?
We can’t buy ar’s anymore?

 

[rjthehunter]

@wllm guns have been around forever. Why only now is banning them the solution? It's not going to solve anything. Psychopaths will be Psychopaths whether they can legally own a gun or not. Look at the recent stabbing spree in London...

I'm guessing you don't own any ARs. So wouldn't care if people had to give them up. First they want your ARs, then they want your pistols, then they only want you to use double barrel shotguns and single shot rifles. Give up all you want. I hope others have a sturdier spine. Guns have never been the problem.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

@wllm guns have been around forever. Why only now is banning them the solution? It's not going to solve anything. Psychopaths will be Psychopaths whether they can legally own a gun or not. Look at the recent stabbing spree in London...

We did have an ban on ARs from 94-04', that had bipartisan support. This didn't really become an issue until the market was flooded with them.

The first gun ban was signed by Regan in response to the black panthers... no one had issues denying their 2A rights.

Let's at least be honest about history.

I'm guessing you don't own any ARs. So wouldn't care if people had to give them up. First they want your ARs, then they want your pistols, then they only want you to use double barrel shotguns and single shot rifles. Give up all you want. I hope others have a sturdier spine. Guns have never been the problem.

I have a driver's license, passport, credit cards, a CC permit and global entry. The gov has all my details and my fingerprints like 5 times over.

I have no problem with gun licenses, that would be my "do something"

We have 3 threads going about suppressors right now, apparently half the forum has one... so that hassle isn't a big deal but absolutely no discussion about anything else?

Your attitude specifically is the problem, I agree with you on the 2A, I don't think that AR's should be banned hell I've called my congress folks numerous times but because I call you out for saying we should shoot cops and for not coming up with constructive solutions I'm suddenly anti-gun.

The cold dead head purity test is a $*)Q!#@$ joke and more than anything is what will cause bans to happen.

 

[Mallardsx2]

I'm not giving any more inches, neither should any CITIZEN who values the second amendment that lives in Colorado or any other state in this nation. It's time to take a stand people. This is nonsense.

And for the record, I don't own a suppressor.