Colorado Assault Weapons Ban Submitted

[VikingsGuy]

Plus stare decisis is dead, so the individual right is up for grabs.

Come one - don’t run out that partisan trope. Stare decisis is on the same ground it has always been on, just the partisan sides enamored with it has flipped.

If stare decisis was king, we would still have separate but equal, death penalty for minors and forced sterilization of the disabled.

Stare decisis is but one point of judicial consideration - always has been, always will be. But boy do the sides use the public’s ignorance of this to drum up money and votes.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Come one - don’t run out that partisan trope. Stare decisis is on the same ground it has always been on, just the partisan sides enamored with it has flipped.

If stare decisis was king, we would still have separate but equal, death penalty for minors and forced sterilization of the disabled.

State decisis is but one point of judicial consideration - always has been, always will be. But boy do the sides use the public’s ignorance of this to drum up money and votes.

He’s Back!!!!

 

[Deleted member 28227]

Come one - don’t run out that partisan trope. Stare decisis is on the same ground it has always been on, just the partisan sides enamored with it has flipped.

If stare decisis was king, we would still have separate but equal, death penalty for minors and forced sterilization of the disabled.

State decisis is but one point of judicial consideration - always has been, always will be. But boy do the sides use the public’s ignorance of this to drum up money and votes.

As I was typing that one I actually thought er Vikings will hate this

A 7-1 Plessy to a 9-0 Brown kinda seems like folks reevaluated the premise rather than just got placed on the bench with an axe to grind but that’s just me…

Mostly though I meant that a bit tongue in cheek… a lot of absolutism about the 2A going on here.

 

[Bullbrl]

Germanic/Celtic tribes successfully used guerilla tactics to defeat superior numbers of Roman soldiers, and ultimately hamstring the Empire.

I disagree with your talking point about the common motivation of all democrats to disarm law-abiding Americans. Rather, the goal is to reduce the carnage of mass shootings, firearm suicides, juvenile gun deaths, etc. Our government has so far been unsuccessful, as proven by the #s. Other governments have been far more successful at this, and a large part of their interventions have centered around reducing the availability of guns in general to at-risk populations (children, mentally ill) and automatic/semi/high capacity firearms (Australia). Nothing else has been proven to work at reducing the impacts on gun violence on national populations. Obviously, proven solutions are preferred when other solutions have failed, particularly while the US body count exceeds 38,000 annually (2018).

I agree that absolute rejection of gun legislation tilts the political and public see-saw against NRA, etc. If the law of the land distills down to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vs the right to keep and bear arms, 2A will necessarily lose.

I agree that lack of enforcement of existing laws undermines the effectiveness of existing gun laws on its surface. Sheriffs that refuse to enforce gun laws are a prime example, and a flashing neon irony. Some existing gun laws should be better enforced, some improved, some reconsidered.

The common goal might be to "reduce" carnage but the end goal is to completely remove firearms from society. To think that isn't the end goal is very naive. What do you think is going to happen if we ban "scary assault weapons" and the mass shootings, gun deaths, etc don't go away? Where do we go from there? Do we start banning handguns and/or lowering magazine capacity to 2 rounds? Will you be ok with that? Have you been paying attention to Canada? That's coming our way if we're not careful.

I'll ask this to you since nobody answered it before...Would you be ok with getting a permit, taking a test, and a background check to practice free speech or religion?

 

[VikingsGuy]

A 7-1 Plessy to a 9-0 Brown kinda seems like folks reevaluated the premise

With all due respect to the Court, I attribute it to 58 years of cowardice. As soon as they got 5 votes they should have reversed that atrocious ruling. Those 58 yrs were not disciplined stare decisis, but rather cruel indifference.

 

[elkduds]

The common goal might be to "reduce" carnage but the end goal is to completely remove firearms from society. To think that isn't the end goal is very naive. What do you think is going to happen if we ban "scary assault weapons" and the mass shootings, gun deaths, etc don't go away? Where do we go from there? Do we start banning handguns and/or lowering magazine capacity to 2 rounds? Will you be ok with that? Have you been paying attention to Canada? That's coming our way if we're not careful.

I'll ask this to you since nobody answered it before...Would you be ok with getting a permit, taking a test, and a background check to practice free speech or religion?

Please provide proof beyond your opinion that the end goal is to completely remove firearms from society. Without it you have only offered Kool ade. As is fear-mongering about Canada. The most likely circumstance that would cause our court and government to repeal 2A is the continuing escalation of gun deaths, for which the Don't Tread/Come Take Its have offered no viable solutions, and is perceived by the general public as not even caring about the reality of gun violence. The voting public favors more restrictions on guns by a majority sufficient to win elections, over 60% including gun owners. The shift toward voter opposition will continue to coincide with the increasing gun death statistics. Politically the case against unrestricted guns gets stronger as gun deaths increase. A reasonable place to start saving citizens from gun violence would be restrictions that remove gun access from suicidal people. Over 60% of 2018 US gun deaths were suicides.

As long as the body count keeps climbing, voters will seek leaders and laws that correct that tragedy. Thinking otherwise is naive, and distracts gun advocates from joining in solving the pandemic of gun violence. Likely to their detriment.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Free speech/religion are not smoking guns killing 40,000 Americans including children each year. So a contrived comparison between 2A legal restrictions and nonlethal freedoms does not apply. The more I hear 2a absolutism, the more reasonable I consider restrictions that disarm people who are threats, and that reduce the harm done when people commit mass shootings.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

With all due respect to the Court, I attribute it to 58 years of cowardice. As soon as they got 5 votes they should have reversed that atrocious ruling. Those 58 yrs were not disciplined stare decisis, but rather cruel indifference.

Out maneuvered again I see… well played Sir…

 

[bayoublaster7527]

Germanic/Celtic tribes successfully used guerilla tactics to defeat superior numbers of Roman soldiers, and ultimately hamstring the Empire.

I disagree with your talking point about the common motivation of all democrats to disarm law-abiding Americans. Rather, the goal is to reduce the carnage of mass shootings, firearm suicides, juvenile gun deaths, etc. Our government has so far been unsuccessful, as proven by the #s. Other governments have been far more successful at this, and a large part of their interventions have centered around reducing the availability of guns in general to at-risk populations (children, mentally ill) and automatic/semi/high capacity firearms (Australia). Nothing else has been proven to work at reducing the impacts on gun violence on national populations. Obviously, proven solutions are preferred when other solutions have failed, particularly while the US body count exceeds 38,000 annually (2018).

I agree that absolute rejection of gun legislation tilts the political and public see-saw against NRA, etc. If the law of the land distills down to the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness vs the right to keep and bear arms, 2A will necessarily lose.

I agree that lack of enforcement of existing laws undermines the effectiveness of existing gun laws on its surface. Sheriffs that refuse to enforce gun laws are a prime example, and a flashing neon irony. Some existing gun laws should be better enforced, some improved, some reconsidered.

Please provide proof beyond your opinion that the end goal is to completely remove firearms from society. Without it you have only offered Kool ade. As is fear-mongering about Canada. The most likely circumstance that would cause our court and government to repeal 2A is the continuing escalation of gun deaths, for which the Don't Tread/Come Take Its have offered no viable solutions, and is perceived by the general public as not even caring about the reality of gun violence. The voting public favors more restrictions on guns by a majority sufficient to win elections, over 60% including gun owners. The shift toward voter opposition will continue to coincide with the increasing gun death statistics. Politically the case against unrestricted guns gets stronger as gun deaths increase. A reasonable place to start saving citizens from gun violence would be restrictions that remove gun access from suicidal people. Over 60% of 2018 US gun deaths were suicides.

As long as the body count keeps climbing, voters will seek leaders and laws that correct that tragedy. Thinking otherwise is naive, and distracts gun advocates from joining in solving the pandemic of gun violence. Likely to their detriment.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Free speech/religion are not smoking guns killing 40,000 Americans including children each year. So a contrived comparison between 2A legal restrictions and nonlethal freedoms does not apply. The more I hear 2a absolutism, the more reasonable I consider restrictions that disarm people who are threats, and that reduce the harm done when people commit mass shootings.

Do you believe that life, Liberty, and the pursuit of happiness and the right to bear arms are mutually exclusive? Do we have to choose one or the other? I don’t necessarily believe so. How do we define who is a threat? Do we circumvent due process completely? Does your neighbor or ex-spouse get to decide? Does the accused have any recourse to provide a rebuttal? Back to the topic at hand, the draft Colorado bill outlaws the majority of semiautomatic firearms. In theory, they would meet your requirement to reduce the harm done when people commit mass shootings. For them to be effective though would require confiscation of the banned firearms already on the street. Are you in favor of this also? Many of the restrictions you are in favor of such as red flag laws and bans on semi automatic firearms have been implemented in places like California and the northeast. Have we seen a significant decrease in gun violence there? California should be a peaceful utopia pretty soon. Currently guns are not “unrestricted”, I believe most gun purchases still require a background check. Colorado legislators believe Colorado residents should not be able to possess semi-automatic shotguns based on the draft bill. Only allowing for possession if the owner is able to provide proof of ownership previously, placing the burden on the law-abiding citizen. Seems that would go a long ways toward removing firearms from society, at least in Colorado.

 

[lifesupport4u]

A reasonable place to start saving citizens from gun violence would be restrictions that remove gun access from suicidal people. Over 60% of 2018 US gun deaths were suicides.

You can thank HIPAA that this information is protected. Like it or not, it’s privacy rights, not gun rights that are the hangup related to mental health. So abolish HIPAA or amend it if this is what you want. Maybe you could ban guns from people who were suicidal, but for now you can’t legally find out they were suicidal.

We have lived in a relatively peaceful nation and it seems people have forgotten or not often contemplated that we are not immune from history repeating itself. Most of the people I have talked to who are not 2A supporters think it’s crazy to consider that our government could fall or that it could turn against the people. Yet history books seem to indicate it’s pretty likely at some point. I don’t believe we have evolved.

Mass shootings and killings are tragic events. I just don’t believe if the law abiding hand over their weapons that we will find ourself any safer from the non-law abiding. I do believe the law abiding can do a better job of defending themselves and defending those who cannot defend themselves from the non-law abiding. I do believe we can also be harsher on those who aim to infringe on the lives of others.

I don’t believe the government can protect me better than I can protect myself. I believe in law enforcement and that we are safer because of a justice system. However, they cannot protect me every moment- as well as I can myself- as I go about my day. Uvalde is a prime example… armed cops unwilling or unable to neutralize an adversary. I trust most cops are much better than this…. But I don’t trust it enough to not look after myself.

While I am a strong supporter of 2A it seems both sides are too busy trying to make the other side look bad. And in this vein, they often won’t find middle ground because both sides would rather have you angry at the other side than agree on common sense solutions.

 

[Bullbrl]

Please provide proof beyond your opinion that the end goal is to completely remove firearms from society. Without it you have only offered Kool ade. As is fear-mongering about Canada. The most likely circumstance that would cause our court and government to repeal 2A is the continuing escalation of gun deaths, for which the Don't Tread/Come Take Its have offered no viable solutions, and is perceived by the general public as not even caring about the reality of gun violence. The voting public favors more restrictions on guns by a majority sufficient to win elections, over 60% including gun owners. The shift toward voter opposition will continue to coincide with the increasing gun death statistics. Politically the case against unrestricted guns gets stronger as gun deaths increase. A reasonable place to start saving citizens from gun violence would be restrictions that remove gun access from suicidal people. Over 60% of 2018 US gun deaths were suicides.

I don't have any proof the end goal is to completely ban guns but it seems pretty obvious to me. It also seems pretty obvious that a ban on assault weapons won't prevent a significant amount of gun deaths either and like I said where do we go from there? ONCE AGAIN, if people actually cared about gun deaths we would be talking about banning HANDGUNS, but we aren't, we are talking "assault weapons". Why? Which one kills more people each year? I'll answer that question for you since nobody seems to want to touch question. Liberals want to ban assault weapons because they know it won't change much and then they can go back and ban handguns later.

Over 60% favor gun restrictions because they vote by emotion and not facts. Let's get real here. Where does a VAST majority of gun violence take place?Who is committing those crimes? What is truly being done to stop the gun violence in those places?

If people are truly wanting to kill themselves, do you think they will stop because they can't find a gun?

I’ll say it again, if we really want to stop needless deaths of our young people how about we start with fentanyl. Over 300 per day of our young people are killed each day.

As long as the body count keeps climbing, voters will seek leaders and laws that correct that tragedy. Thinking otherwise is naive, and distracts gun advocates from joining in solving the pandemic of gun violence. Likely to their detriment.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are inalienable rights. Free speech/religion are not smoking guns killing 40,000 Americans including children each year. So a contrived comparison between 2A legal restrictions and nonlethal freedoms does not apply. The more I hear 2a absolutism, the more reasonable I consider restrictions that disarm people who are threats, and that reduce the harm done when people commit mass shootings.

I would strongly suggest you do some research on the most common factor for these mass shootings, especially school shootings. What do we usually find out after the fact? They were bullied, called out on social media, in some way marginalized by his/her peers. Hmmm, see how that relates to my comments on free speech? Just think if we weren't allowed to say anything mean. Do you think that would prevent some deaths? Does limiting free speech sound like something we should entertain? Why not, it would most likely help prevent many of these mass shootings?

Throughout history free speech and religion have been the catalyst to more death than anything else. If we want to do what we can to prevent gun deaths, why aren't we looking at root causes instead of the tools?

 

[TheReaper8899]

All I can say is good luck finding a sheriff willing to go door to door.

 

[Bullbrl]

All I can say is good luck finding a sheriff willing to go door to door.

In many states (Oregon, Illinois) the sheriffs came out saying they wouldn’t enforce these CLEARLY unconstitutional laws.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

More gun ownership increases firearm suicide rates. Guns are quick, violent, reliable means to off oneself. The firearm suicide rates of compared Iceland and Ireland are in single digits.

Compare Iceland – Proportion of Households with Firearms

In Iceland, the percentage of households with one or more guns is reported to be... (open to display chart). Armed violence reduction, development, guns and peace.

www.gunpolicy.org

 

[Bullbrl]

More gun ownership increases firearm suicide rates. Guns are quick, violent , reliable means to off oneself.

Compare Iceland – Proportion of Households with Firearms

In Iceland, the percentage of households with one or more guns is reported to be... (open to display chart). Armed violence reduction, development, guns and peace.

www.gunpolicy.org

I don’t doubt that. How many of those suicides are with assault weapons?

Are you saying we should ban guns?

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

I don’t doubt that. How many of those suicides are with assault weapons?

Are you saying we should ban guns?

Eat a dick, you troll. If you spent more time here, you would know my personal experience of cleaning up what a Federal #2 duck load does in a garage.

 

[Bullbrl]

Eat a duck, you troll.

How am I a troll?

This is the problem. People can’t have an honest, using facts, discussion.

I agreed with what you posted, I didn’t dispute the facts. This thread is about assault weapons and, by extension, banning guns. Hence, my question to you.

Btw, 2 days ago I did eat some duck that I had made into nuggets. They were tasty.

 

[Benfromalbuquerque]

How am I a troll?

This is the problem. People can’t have an honest, using facts, discussion.

I agreed with what you posted, I didn’t dispute the facts. This thread is about assault weapons and, by extension, banning guns. Hence, my question to you.

Btw, 2 days ago I did eat some duck that I had made into nuggets. They were tasty.

So leave firearm suicides out. You were the one who brought that up on this assault weapons thread, not me.

 

[Laszlo Cravensworth]

How am I a troll?

This is the problem. People can’t have an honest, using facts, discussion.

I agreed with what you posted, I didn’t dispute the facts. This thread is about assault weapons and, by extension, banning guns. Hence, my question to you.

Btw, 2 days ago I did eat some duck that I had made into nuggets. They were tasty.

You aren't having a discussion. You're spraying hypotheticals and engaging in slippery slopes.

Folks here has advocated for gun bans or confiscations. There are a few folks who have brought up the potential for expanding regulations.

If someone said common sense gun reform inevitably people will froth at the mouth over that phrase.

What folks are talking about is something like raising the age for AR style guns: That may have prevented Uvalde. Expanding background checks: That might have prevented Uvalde and Parkland. Maybe a handgun waiting period: That might reduce impulsive suicides.

Everyone acknowledges that this wont stop all the shootings. It may reduce these high profile events that fan the fire though. That's the discussion.

And before we go into some vast liberal conspiracy, consider that maybe some folks here have more exposure to liberals than you. Perhaps we even talk to them on a daily basis and have legitimate discussions. The vast majority aren't advocating for firearms confiscation.

 

[Bullbrl]

Eat a dick, you troll. If you spent more time here, you would know my personal experience of cleaning up what a Federal #2 duck load does in a garage.

Sorry to hear about that, truly. A good friend of mine, and business mentor, drove out east of my town on Hwy 20, pulled over to the side of the road and ended his life. An ex-girlfriend of his who was going out mountain biking was actually the one who recognized his car and found him! So, I know how you feel. It doesn’t change facts however.

 

[Deleted member 28227]

All I can say is good luck finding a sheriff willing to go door to door.

In many states (Oregon, Illinois) the sheriffs came out saying they wouldn’t enforce these CLEARLY unconstitutional laws.

I think there needs to be a point of clarification here as people are arguing a scenario that is not part of reality. This is the Illinois law, the Oregon law as a similar provision, as did the Colorado mag ban, as does the state of MA ban.

All older weapons are grandfathered in, so no one is going door to door, because whatever is in your safe is legal.... now caveat it appears in IL you need to get an affidavit saying you had it before.

Can we tamp down the hyperbole a bit guys and stick to the, still objectionable, facts?

By and large these laws are restricting manufacture and sale not current ownership.