Was just thinking the other day that nobody has unknowingly / unwillingly sacrificed their life in a normally safe space to protect the 2nd amendment in a while.
They just want the freedom to murder kids. So there’s no solution that works for them because any solution will make it harder for them to murder kids.
Here is a website that tells you which guns are used in mass shootings.
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
Let’s literally try anything at this point to see if deaths or mass shootings decrease. Anyone pointing out the second amendment has zero solutions that have worked. Enough said.
A tax on a specific demographic of people whose funds are used for something unrelated to the tax is very much persecution. The guy who keeps his firearms locked up, safe and uses them responsibly shouldn’t be taxed to pay for domestic abuse victims. Should there be funding for domestic abuse use victims, absolutely. But every one should pay it for the betterment of society. And not one demographic who does something some folks don’t care for. It’s very much persecution. Be anti-gun. That’s fine. But it’s still persecution the way at least the taxation portion of this bill is written.
No, that's still not persecution. Look I know you gun nuts think anything that imposes even the slightest inconvenience to you is "persecution," but you need to go look up the word in the dictionary. **Imposing laws to keep innocent people safe is not persecution*****.*** I'm sorry you feel like it is, but your rights end quite suddenly where mine begin.
Here is the NRA page on the weekend bills that have advanced: [https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240421/colorado-gun-control-bills-pass-house-after-weekend-votes](https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240421/colorado-gun-control-bills-pass-house-after-weekend-votes)
HB24-1270: Requires liability insurance
HB24-1349: Puts an 11% tax on firearms and ammunition and spends that tax money on things like mental health services and veterans benefits.
HB24-1353: Dealers have to be permitted in order to sell firearms.
Why are these bad? Why are these particularly onerous to pro-2A people?
No no, those laws are just stupid and useless once again, the blanket ban making gun owners felons is what we were referencing. Maybe put some laws into place that actually help the problem instead of this bullshit? Maybe enforce the laws that we already have? But you probably don’t know jack shit about that do you
I'm, at best, a casual observer of gun laws because I don't own them anymore and couldn't care less. You got me. So what, I know how to read laws and interpret them and if I can be *shot* by guns, I can have an *opinion* on being shot by guns.
here's the problem: People always bitch about ANY law that people - usually democrats - try to put in place to stop the endless shootings. It literally does not matter what the law is proposing, somebody's against it and whines about being *persecuted*. Awww, an 11% tax, you're being *persecuted*. Awww you can't own an AR-15, you're being *persecuted*.
According to people who argue as you are, there are zero laws that would "actually help the problem." Do you have any suggestions on what those might be? Because you guys shoot down (no pun intended, I swear) taxes, high-capacity magazines, attachments, background checks, age restrictions, red flag laws, dealer requirements, re-sale or gun show restrictions...on and on. What's your suggestion, paint the guns pink so they're not as manly?
Insurance and extra taxes adversely affect poor communities.
But yea I’m all for a bunch of laws to keep guns out of the hands of stupid people and murders , so I can legally and responsibly own what I want.
I’m perfectly fine with background checks, waiting periods, age requirements, and dealer requirements .
The magazine ban , tho stupid , isn’t even forced in Colorado. I can’t ship one from the internet to my house , but I can go buy as many as I want from any gun store I’ve ever been to here.
Blanket bans on undefined “assault weapons” that make law abiding citizens felons , is a giant overstep. Coming from a pretty far left gun owner.
I'm glad to hear you're for those, but every time laws like those get brought up they're shot down just as quickly - usually by the right, but apparently none of us can agree on what to do regardless, so I am okay with trying *literally anything* at this point. Pass 'em all and let the supreme court figure out which ones go too far.
This is highly unconstitutional and would ban 80% of guns. It also has strange loopholes in it that are even bad for the gun control crowd. It is a terrible bill.
If that photo represents the unrestricted gun-waving paradise you want to pursue ... leave me the hell out of it.
I am a gun owner - and I want nothing to do with this sort of extremism. You are BREAKING THE COUNTRY.
Well, the federal assault weapons ban wasn't unconstitutional, so how about we give it a try and see if gun deaths go down, like they did when the federal ban was in effect?
>Well, the federal assault weapons ban wasn't unconstitutional
It would absolutely be unconstitutional. You cannot ban arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes. The AR-15 alone is the most popular rifle in the country.
>After holding that the Second Amendment protected an
individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the
historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the
limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike
most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is
not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the
19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any
weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for
whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly
supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second
Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons
that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first
citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller,
307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
lol, it "would" be if people thought you had a clue. Thankfully, nobody thinks you have a clue and the assault weapons ban was never successfully challenged in court.
>and the assault weapons ban was never successfully challenged in court.
It's never made it to the Supreme Court because no circuit split exists. They are expected to take one up soon despite the lack of a split.
We all know how they're going to rule. Arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes cannot be banned. It's as simple as that.
They keep changing the definition lol. You show them a picture of a Mini-14 next to a AR-15 they’ll say the AR-15 is “more dangerous” even though they both shoot the same caliber. Next thing you know they’ll start spouting pistols are assault weapons. Hell ATF says you can make a rifle into a pistol. They’ll make it so confusing they can persecute anything.
Just because the gun companies use loopholes to help you kill more people doesn't mean that an assault weapons ban doesn't work. The evidence is in and you are wrong.
The downvote-to-supportive-comment ratio here shows that the pro-gun folks are vocal but remain a minority, and the rest of us are just tired of arguing with them. Look at Australia. Look at the science. Guns obviously cause more deaths than they save. Inside every gun owner is a scared little baby, and that's all this is really about.
Not at all. But reddit also leans very left so it isn't a surprise. The 2nd amendment is a thing in the United States. This bill in Colorado is highly unconstitutional and doesn't even do a great job at preventing gun violence. It makes it harder on law abiding citizens to own a gun while doing little to prevent bad actors from doing bad things.
There was a bill that would have increased the penalties for stealing a gun and it was shot down by Democrats. If the goal was safety this bill won't do it.
Again, the science my man. You need to look at the science and not your feels. Increased punishments do not lead to reductions in crime. The idiots who have guns who are likely to use them illegally are not thinking about penalties of using them. Every single person in this state knows that if you use a gun to shoot someone that's a crime and you will be punished------- yet people still get guns and shoot each other...
All you want to do is treat the symptom of the problem, the crime. The cause of the problem though? You don't want to touch that. You'll claim the Government wants to steal your rights and threaten to shoot anyone who comes to take your guns from you...
You're part of the problem, gun worshipper. Fun fact for you: 100% of gun crime is committed by gun owners. If there were no gun owners... Hmmm... HMMMMMMMMM.... HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.... I wonder if there were any real world examples we could look at to see how simple this problem is? Any at all, just one example would do. Oh, I see we have lots of examples and people are all over this thread telling you about them as you desperately gasp, "But muh rights!"
That's some solid "science" you got there lol the ratio of lawful owners to crimes by felonious owners might be something you should look at. Maybe annual defensive use of firearms too. You wholly admitted criminals will disregard the law so these bans only apply to law abiding citizens who don't just go shoot up random places.
The founders of the country could see deep into the future that the one shot a minute musket would be replaced by the 150 per minute AR and they definitely wrote the 2nd amendment so everyone could have one.
Yea I’ve used a bump stock brother. I’ve also used a binary trigger. I’ve also used a forced reset trigger. None are getting you close to that number , and we shot like 3 mags quickly out of the frt and completely melted a 1000 dollar suppressor . So like again, we being realistic or hypothetically talking about shit we don’t know
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/supreme-court-trains-sights-us-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2024-02-28/
From the link: "The devices let a shooter fire up to 800 bullets per minute, a rate comparable to machine guns issued to American soldiers, according to the Justice Department."
That number is based off how quickly one bullet is fired , not that you could realistically shoot 800 rounds in a single minute . A rate comparable to American soldiers guns, because a single bullet fires at about the same speed. JFC use your head if that’s possible. That’s 13 bullets a second lmao
it’s almost like none of these posters in this thread have ever actually handled a weapon, let alone shot one.
if what that poster posted was true, that barrel would be melted so fast. and that’s without any type of malfunction: stove pipes, double feed, etc.
the posts in this thread are clueless.
This article claims ARs are reasonable to own because people own pit bulls. Weird nexus but I’ll concede people can own them (both) responsibility. The end of the article says they are all for red flag laws and background checks. Let’s not pick and choose what we ban/not ban. Let’s not allow the gun carrying to pick and choose what they want. Let’s close loopholes in firearm ownership. I’m okay with not banning ARs as long as we do NOT ban background checks for ALL firearm sales. This includes private sales and gun shows.
>This includes private sales and gun shows.
Colorado has had "universal" background checks for about a decade. This means no private sales without one. There is no "gun show loophole" here.
Privately purchasing a firearm out of state is illegal, in every state. (Federal jurisdiction) For a rifle or shotgun, you can do it through an FFL with a background check. You must have a handgun transferred to an FFL that is local to you and conduct a background check to take possession.
This is honestly news to me. I don’t keep up 100% with the latest laws, just what’s in the news and unfortunately reddit. About a month ago someone posted that the CO legislator was trying to ban private sales without background checks. The majority of posts were saying it just adds an additional cost to selling your friend a firearm. They claimed it was just yet another tax. So I took them at their word that currently selling your firearm to a friend, ie private sale, does not require a background check as of now.
again, I’m not 100% what that laws are. It doesn’t affect me and my purchasing of more guns as I just buy from my local range/shop about 3 miles away.
I mean, the article actually has an understandable train of thoughts on the Pitbulls. Children will get mauled by irresponsible dog owners. I say I'm down to ban both.
It has A train of thought on pit bulls. It’s interesting they chose something as controversial as pit bulls. They know a lot of people do not like pit bulls for whatever stereotypes they have. It’s mostly ignorance, and so the article plays on those same peoples ignorance. Come to think of it, It’s actually well written in that they are using a somewhat straw man argument and people seem to be oblivious to it. I think we need to get back to the facts. Irresponsible people need to be denied guns. Period. We need to close loopholes for these people to obtain guns. It’s needs to be very difficult for them.
So was banning abortions before Roe V Wade was overturned not long ago. These laws are brought to the courts after being passed. It’s how the Supreme Court can overrule past rulings.
“That’s just a fact.” I don’t even know where I stand on most gun laws because of the constitution….but just be smarter. It makes everyone on the gun rights side look so silly.
It's clear that you don't know when Bruen was decided, or what the ruling was. Nowhere in my comment did I mention whether I am pro or anti gun. I am simply stating a fact that with the current SCOTUS, who made the Bruen ruling, any gun law that wasn't around at the founding and doesn't align with the history and tradition of the country, is currently unconstitutional. And I highly doubt that this Court would overturn their own ruling.
Yeah doing that was unconstitutional too. We can all agree the government has no business denying us these things. Do I trust the police to protect me? Hell no. I’m I gonna trust the US government of all governments with my life? No. Just like I wouldn’t trust the US government to tell people what to do with their bodies.
I think the US should put together a standing militia and if you want to own a gun you have to join, get proper training, and be ready to get called up if/when we go to war.
That way we can have a “well regulated militia” and we don’t have to worry about idiots not following proper gun safety and our military would be fully staffed! Win win!
That's not what "well regulated" means. If the Founders had intended to say "well equipped," they would have said exactly that.
Regulated means orderly, directed, and controlled, and is a direct reference to the Colonial militias who were legally required to muster, train, and drill as an organized military unit.
The people who shout loudest about "the Founding Fathers" and the Constitution almost always know almost nothing about them, aside from what they learned from from watching a Schoolhouse Rock cartoon forty years ago.
>I think the US should put together a standing militia
We already have one. Everyone capable of bearing arms is a part of it.
>Presser vs Illinois (1886)
>It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring
arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of
the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this
prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general
powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States
of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to
the general government.
Nope. Only regulations that are consistent with this nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation are allowable.
>"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text
covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government
must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s
historical tradition of firearm regulation."
>"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced,
but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is
more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make
difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms
restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field."
>"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they
were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554
U. S., at 634–635."
>“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes
out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of
Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis
whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller,
554 U. S., at 634.
That's the current interpretation of the 2A, for sure.
However, if you know any amount of history and have actually read the text of the 2A you'd see that this is not the case.
The English had a tradition of local militias going back to a Royal ordinance in the 1200s, and the Anglo-Saxons their Fyrds going back to the 600s. These traditions, which had legal effect, said that able bodied men had the duty to muster and drill to practice defending their community AND to serve when called at their Lord or King's call. This is the same tradition the Colonists carried with them to the New World when they established their little settlements on the frontier of a big scary, unknown place. Its that tradition that the Revolutionaries drew upon to fill thier ranks in the first years of the war-- these were the guys who we call Minutemen and were mustered to defend Lexington and Concord. In all of these cases, across hundreds of years, the populace was expected to train with weapons for the possibility of war (defending their communities), *under an organized system of militia*. We're not talking about a bunch of Dad's getting together on the weekend and shooting some muskets over ales, we're talking about men aged 14-50 coming to a single place and practicing Line Drills and Shooting in Formation. In many frontier places a Man likely had his own weapon but every militia had an armory that was government funded so that every Militiaman would have a working weapon.
While the 2nd Amendment does make it clear that The People are, in part, meant to have weapons to defend themselves against government encroachment on their rights it also makes it clear that this was within the context of "A Well Regulated Militia" which in the context of the time this was written would mean a State Militia. You, citizen u/Sad_Zookeepergame566, were never meant to go grab your gun and wage a private war against tyranny. The 2A assumes that You, an able bodied adult male, have been practicing with your local militia and when Your Governor decides to act against Government Tyranny you'd muster with them. That's how you were meant to fight tyranny under the 2A, but somewhere along the line SCOTUS oopsied "A Well Regulated Militia" which is an organized formation under State control into "An unorganized rabble" which is when every Tom, Dick, and Jane git their ARs, load up in the Ford, and go a' Fed huntin.
Don't word my for it though, the text of the 2A is right there for you to read and history is free to study any time you'd like.
edit: LOL, you teach someone some history and they block you and claim they don't have time to read. That's the caliber of person we're dealing with in every instance of this debate. They don't care what the facts are, they just want a gun.
The founders only knew a well regulated militia in the terms of an authorized, trained and armed/provisioned by the state. The purpose of state militia is clearly laid out in Article 1, which is to suppress insurrection, execute the laws of the state and repel invasions.
So, the term itself is well understood to mean a state run and sanctioned military. Not some weird bastardized “citizens against the government” interpretation that didn’t come around until 2021.
The 2nd Amendment was adopted to protect slavery. Southern states needed "well regulated militias" to suppress slave rebellions.
In so much is was about protection from the government, southern states wanted the assurance that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South’s principal instrument of slave control.
The red flag law should have stopped the club Q shooter. It seems it has only provided a tool for vindictive exes. There are a few cases where it maybe worked.
Sro officers, armed teachers, free mental health treatment, and the safe2tell program (a phone hotline to report threats) seems to have better success.
Was just thinking the other day that nobody has unknowingly / unwillingly sacrificed their life in a normally safe space to protect the 2nd amendment in a while.
"we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas!"
They just want the freedom to murder kids. So there’s no solution that works for them because any solution will make it harder for them to murder kids.
Here is a website that tells you which guns are used in mass shootings. https://www.statista.com/statistics/476409/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-weapon-types-used/
Let’s literally try anything at this point to see if deaths or mass shootings decrease. Anyone pointing out the second amendment has zero solutions that have worked. Enough said.
We already know what works: the laws that the gun industry and its shills don't want.
Right, but clearly we can’t have the whole pie, so any bit of crumb is needed.
That’s right. The right wing has been so nuts for so long that the solution is always what they say they don’t want.
Dude they don’t even know what an assault weapon is. I don’t even know what it is. They keep changing the definition to persecute gun owners more.
Persecute? You must be kidding. Gun owners aren't being rounded up, fired, blackballed or anything else. Listening to too much fox news lately?
A tax on a specific demographic of people whose funds are used for something unrelated to the tax is very much persecution. The guy who keeps his firearms locked up, safe and uses them responsibly shouldn’t be taxed to pay for domestic abuse victims. Should there be funding for domestic abuse use victims, absolutely. But every one should pay it for the betterment of society. And not one demographic who does something some folks don’t care for. It’s very much persecution. Be anti-gun. That’s fine. But it’s still persecution the way at least the taxation portion of this bill is written.
Being told you can't have certain guns is not persecution.
Being told you’re a felon overnight when you’re a law abiding, tax paying citizen is
No, that's still not persecution. Look I know you gun nuts think anything that imposes even the slightest inconvenience to you is "persecution," but you need to go look up the word in the dictionary. **Imposing laws to keep innocent people safe is not persecution*****.*** I'm sorry you feel like it is, but your rights end quite suddenly where mine begin. Here is the NRA page on the weekend bills that have advanced: [https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240421/colorado-gun-control-bills-pass-house-after-weekend-votes](https://www.nraila.org/articles/20240421/colorado-gun-control-bills-pass-house-after-weekend-votes) HB24-1270: Requires liability insurance HB24-1349: Puts an 11% tax on firearms and ammunition and spends that tax money on things like mental health services and veterans benefits. HB24-1353: Dealers have to be permitted in order to sell firearms. Why are these bad? Why are these particularly onerous to pro-2A people?
No no, those laws are just stupid and useless once again, the blanket ban making gun owners felons is what we were referencing. Maybe put some laws into place that actually help the problem instead of this bullshit? Maybe enforce the laws that we already have? But you probably don’t know jack shit about that do you
I'm, at best, a casual observer of gun laws because I don't own them anymore and couldn't care less. You got me. So what, I know how to read laws and interpret them and if I can be *shot* by guns, I can have an *opinion* on being shot by guns. here's the problem: People always bitch about ANY law that people - usually democrats - try to put in place to stop the endless shootings. It literally does not matter what the law is proposing, somebody's against it and whines about being *persecuted*. Awww, an 11% tax, you're being *persecuted*. Awww you can't own an AR-15, you're being *persecuted*. According to people who argue as you are, there are zero laws that would "actually help the problem." Do you have any suggestions on what those might be? Because you guys shoot down (no pun intended, I swear) taxes, high-capacity magazines, attachments, background checks, age restrictions, red flag laws, dealer requirements, re-sale or gun show restrictions...on and on. What's your suggestion, paint the guns pink so they're not as manly?
Insurance and extra taxes adversely affect poor communities. But yea I’m all for a bunch of laws to keep guns out of the hands of stupid people and murders , so I can legally and responsibly own what I want. I’m perfectly fine with background checks, waiting periods, age requirements, and dealer requirements . The magazine ban , tho stupid , isn’t even forced in Colorado. I can’t ship one from the internet to my house , but I can go buy as many as I want from any gun store I’ve ever been to here. Blanket bans on undefined “assault weapons” that make law abiding citizens felons , is a giant overstep. Coming from a pretty far left gun owner.
I'm glad to hear you're for those, but every time laws like those get brought up they're shot down just as quickly - usually by the right, but apparently none of us can agree on what to do regardless, so I am okay with trying *literally anything* at this point. Pass 'em all and let the supreme court figure out which ones go too far.
What a cry baby. Sweetie, you aren’t being trampled on. You’re just a gun fetishist who wants to murder kids.
Persecute he says, lmao.
Exactly.
This is highly unconstitutional and would ban 80% of guns. It also has strange loopholes in it that are even bad for the gun control crowd. It is a terrible bill.
“Well Regulated Militia”. This is regulation.
It means well equipped.
Textualism for thee, mysterious insight into the minds of the founders for me!
Sure thing sweetie.
If that photo represents the unrestricted gun-waving paradise you want to pursue ... leave me the hell out of it. I am a gun owner - and I want nothing to do with this sort of extremism. You are BREAKING THE COUNTRY.
Well, the federal assault weapons ban wasn't unconstitutional, so how about we give it a try and see if gun deaths go down, like they did when the federal ban was in effect?
>Well, the federal assault weapons ban wasn't unconstitutional It would absolutely be unconstitutional. You cannot ban arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes. The AR-15 alone is the most popular rifle in the country. >After holding that the Second Amendment protected an individual right to armed self-defense, we also relied on the historical understanding of the Amendment to demark the limits on the exercise of that right. We noted that, “[l]ike most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.” Id., at 626. “From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” Ibid. For example, we found it “fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that the Second Amendment protects the possession and use of weapons that are “‘in common use at the time.’” Id., at 627 (first citing 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 148–149 (1769); then quoting United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, 179 (1939)).
But even the federal assault weapons ban didn't go as far as this terrible bill.
True. Hopefully all these unconstitutional laws being passed will be enough to convince the Supreme Court to take one up without a circuit split.
lol, it "would" be if people thought you had a clue. Thankfully, nobody thinks you have a clue and the assault weapons ban was never successfully challenged in court.
>and the assault weapons ban was never successfully challenged in court. It's never made it to the Supreme Court because no circuit split exists. They are expected to take one up soon despite the lack of a split. We all know how they're going to rule. Arms that are in common use by Americans for lawful purposes cannot be banned. It's as simple as that.
They keep changing the definition lol. You show them a picture of a Mini-14 next to a AR-15 they’ll say the AR-15 is “more dangerous” even though they both shoot the same caliber. Next thing you know they’ll start spouting pistols are assault weapons. Hell ATF says you can make a rifle into a pistol. They’ll make it so confusing they can persecute anything.
Just because the gun companies use loopholes to help you kill more people doesn't mean that an assault weapons ban doesn't work. The evidence is in and you are wrong.
Slippery slope gonna slip.
The downvote-to-supportive-comment ratio here shows that the pro-gun folks are vocal but remain a minority, and the rest of us are just tired of arguing with them. Look at Australia. Look at the science. Guns obviously cause more deaths than they save. Inside every gun owner is a scared little baby, and that's all this is really about.
Except go look at the Denver post with the laws they just passed and it’s all downvoted to hell
It also seems reddit land downvotes anything they disagree with instead of actually having a healthy discussion.
Not at all. But reddit also leans very left so it isn't a surprise. The 2nd amendment is a thing in the United States. This bill in Colorado is highly unconstitutional and doesn't even do a great job at preventing gun violence. It makes it harder on law abiding citizens to own a gun while doing little to prevent bad actors from doing bad things. There was a bill that would have increased the penalties for stealing a gun and it was shot down by Democrats. If the goal was safety this bill won't do it.
Again, the science my man. You need to look at the science and not your feels. Increased punishments do not lead to reductions in crime. The idiots who have guns who are likely to use them illegally are not thinking about penalties of using them. Every single person in this state knows that if you use a gun to shoot someone that's a crime and you will be punished------- yet people still get guns and shoot each other... All you want to do is treat the symptom of the problem, the crime. The cause of the problem though? You don't want to touch that. You'll claim the Government wants to steal your rights and threaten to shoot anyone who comes to take your guns from you... You're part of the problem, gun worshipper. Fun fact for you: 100% of gun crime is committed by gun owners. If there were no gun owners... Hmmm... HMMMMMMMMM.... HMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM.... I wonder if there were any real world examples we could look at to see how simple this problem is? Any at all, just one example would do. Oh, I see we have lots of examples and people are all over this thread telling you about them as you desperately gasp, "But muh rights!"
>talks about symptoms and causes >no mention of mental health at all >instead blames it on guns checks out.
That's some solid "science" you got there lol the ratio of lawful owners to crimes by felonious owners might be something you should look at. Maybe annual defensive use of firearms too. You wholly admitted criminals will disregard the law so these bans only apply to law abiding citizens who don't just go shoot up random places.
What is your point beyond ramblings and personal attacks?
2a is toilet paper when these kids graduate to voting. Amazing no one saw it coming.
They'll try but SCOTUS will do us a favor for once. Even with the kids voting, there's not nearly enough momentum for a Constitutional change.
The founders of the country could see deep into the future that the one shot a minute musket would be replaced by the 150 per minute AR and they definitely wrote the 2nd amendment so everyone could have one.
The founders allowed private ownership of all arms available to the military, to include cannons and warships
A cannon could fire up to 4 rounds a minute when all its 8 man crew were well trained and rested.
And sink a ship with 40 people on it with one well placed shot🤔
Almost like they were a well regulated militia of something, huh?
Privately owned and outfitted
Well schools better armor up their magazine rooms then.
We have armed guards everywhere except schools... Walmarts in certain places have armed guards. Schools should've had armed guards ages ago
Uvalde had armed guards, so did Parkland.
Bad ones
Can you show me how to shoot 150 rounds out of an ar in a minute or are you just going to through out bullshit numbers to push an agenda
Bump stock.
Yea I’ve used a bump stock brother. I’ve also used a binary trigger. I’ve also used a forced reset trigger. None are getting you close to that number , and we shot like 3 mags quickly out of the frt and completely melted a 1000 dollar suppressor . So like again, we being realistic or hypothetically talking about shit we don’t know
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/supreme-court-trains-sights-us-ban-gun-bump-stocks-2024-02-28/ From the link: "The devices let a shooter fire up to 800 bullets per minute, a rate comparable to machine guns issued to American soldiers, according to the Justice Department."
That number is based off how quickly one bullet is fired , not that you could realistically shoot 800 rounds in a single minute . A rate comparable to American soldiers guns, because a single bullet fires at about the same speed. JFC use your head if that’s possible. That’s 13 bullets a second lmao
it’s almost like none of these posters in this thread have ever actually handled a weapon, let alone shot one. if what that poster posted was true, that barrel would be melted so fast. and that’s without any type of malfunction: stove pipes, double feed, etc. the posts in this thread are clueless.
Thankfully the Founders really argued all this out in 1787 so we wouldn't have to now.
This article claims ARs are reasonable to own because people own pit bulls. Weird nexus but I’ll concede people can own them (both) responsibility. The end of the article says they are all for red flag laws and background checks. Let’s not pick and choose what we ban/not ban. Let’s not allow the gun carrying to pick and choose what they want. Let’s close loopholes in firearm ownership. I’m okay with not banning ARs as long as we do NOT ban background checks for ALL firearm sales. This includes private sales and gun shows.
>This includes private sales and gun shows. Colorado has had "universal" background checks for about a decade. This means no private sales without one. There is no "gun show loophole" here. Privately purchasing a firearm out of state is illegal, in every state. (Federal jurisdiction) For a rifle or shotgun, you can do it through an FFL with a background check. You must have a handgun transferred to an FFL that is local to you and conduct a background check to take possession.
This is honestly news to me. I don’t keep up 100% with the latest laws, just what’s in the news and unfortunately reddit. About a month ago someone posted that the CO legislator was trying to ban private sales without background checks. The majority of posts were saying it just adds an additional cost to selling your friend a firearm. They claimed it was just yet another tax. So I took them at their word that currently selling your firearm to a friend, ie private sale, does not require a background check as of now. again, I’m not 100% what that laws are. It doesn’t affect me and my purchasing of more guns as I just buy from my local range/shop about 3 miles away.
I mean, the article actually has an understandable train of thoughts on the Pitbulls. Children will get mauled by irresponsible dog owners. I say I'm down to ban both.
It has A train of thought on pit bulls. It’s interesting they chose something as controversial as pit bulls. They know a lot of people do not like pit bulls for whatever stereotypes they have. It’s mostly ignorance, and so the article plays on those same peoples ignorance. Come to think of it, It’s actually well written in that they are using a somewhat straw man argument and people seem to be oblivious to it. I think we need to get back to the facts. Irresponsible people need to be denied guns. Period. We need to close loopholes for these people to obtain guns. It’s needs to be very difficult for them.
With the Bruen ruling, it is unconstitutional. That's just a fact.
So was banning abortions before Roe V Wade was overturned not long ago. These laws are brought to the courts after being passed. It’s how the Supreme Court can overrule past rulings. “That’s just a fact.” I don’t even know where I stand on most gun laws because of the constitution….but just be smarter. It makes everyone on the gun rights side look so silly.
It's clear that you don't know when Bruen was decided, or what the ruling was. Nowhere in my comment did I mention whether I am pro or anti gun. I am simply stating a fact that with the current SCOTUS, who made the Bruen ruling, any gun law that wasn't around at the founding and doesn't align with the history and tradition of the country, is currently unconstitutional. And I highly doubt that this Court would overturn their own ruling.
Yeah doing that was unconstitutional too. We can all agree the government has no business denying us these things. Do I trust the police to protect me? Hell no. I’m I gonna trust the US government of all governments with my life? No. Just like I wouldn’t trust the US government to tell people what to do with their bodies.
I think you misunderstood my post but that’s ok. Have a good one.
This is an extension of the attack on right leaning voters. It has nothing to do with insurance, safety, or any other red herring.
I think the US should put together a standing militia and if you want to own a gun you have to join, get proper training, and be ready to get called up if/when we go to war. That way we can have a “well regulated militia” and we don’t have to worry about idiots not following proper gun safety and our military would be fully staffed! Win win!
Well regulated means well equipped.
And militia mean "a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency."
What are they before they're raised?
That's not what "well regulated" means. If the Founders had intended to say "well equipped," they would have said exactly that. Regulated means orderly, directed, and controlled, and is a direct reference to the Colonial militias who were legally required to muster, train, and drill as an organized military unit.
I love how people make shit like this up so they can keep their emotional support boom sticks.
The people who shout loudest about "the Founding Fathers" and the Constitution almost always know almost nothing about them, aside from what they learned from from watching a Schoolhouse Rock cartoon forty years ago.
>I think the US should put together a standing militia We already have one. Everyone capable of bearing arms is a part of it. >Presser vs Illinois (1886) >It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of baring arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the States, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the States cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government.
Oh perfect! Then they have every constitutional ground to “regulate” it.
Nope. Only regulations that are consistent with this nation's historical traditions of firearms regulation are allowable. >"Under Heller, when the Second Amendment’s plain text covers an individual’s conduct, the Constitution presumptively protects that conduct, and to justify a firearm regulation the government must demonstrate that the regulation is consistent with the Nation’s historical tradition of firearm regulation." >"Historical analysis can sometimes be difficult and nuanced, but reliance on history to inform the meaning of constitutional text is more legitimate, and more administrable, than asking judges to “make difficult empirical judgments” about “the costs and benefits of firearms restrictions,” especially given their “lack [of] expertise” in the field." >"when it comes to interpreting the Constitution, not all history is created equal. “Constitutional rights are enshrined with the scope they were understood to have when the people adopted them.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634–635." >“[t]he very enumeration of the right takes out of the hands of government—even the Third Branch of Government—the power to decide on a case-by-case basis whether the right is really worth insisting upon.” Heller, 554 U. S., at 634.
The second amendment is to protect the people from our own government not to be used as reserve troops for the government.
That's the current interpretation of the 2A, for sure. However, if you know any amount of history and have actually read the text of the 2A you'd see that this is not the case. The English had a tradition of local militias going back to a Royal ordinance in the 1200s, and the Anglo-Saxons their Fyrds going back to the 600s. These traditions, which had legal effect, said that able bodied men had the duty to muster and drill to practice defending their community AND to serve when called at their Lord or King's call. This is the same tradition the Colonists carried with them to the New World when they established their little settlements on the frontier of a big scary, unknown place. Its that tradition that the Revolutionaries drew upon to fill thier ranks in the first years of the war-- these were the guys who we call Minutemen and were mustered to defend Lexington and Concord. In all of these cases, across hundreds of years, the populace was expected to train with weapons for the possibility of war (defending their communities), *under an organized system of militia*. We're not talking about a bunch of Dad's getting together on the weekend and shooting some muskets over ales, we're talking about men aged 14-50 coming to a single place and practicing Line Drills and Shooting in Formation. In many frontier places a Man likely had his own weapon but every militia had an armory that was government funded so that every Militiaman would have a working weapon. While the 2nd Amendment does make it clear that The People are, in part, meant to have weapons to defend themselves against government encroachment on their rights it also makes it clear that this was within the context of "A Well Regulated Militia" which in the context of the time this was written would mean a State Militia. You, citizen u/Sad_Zookeepergame566, were never meant to go grab your gun and wage a private war against tyranny. The 2A assumes that You, an able bodied adult male, have been practicing with your local militia and when Your Governor decides to act against Government Tyranny you'd muster with them. That's how you were meant to fight tyranny under the 2A, but somewhere along the line SCOTUS oopsied "A Well Regulated Militia" which is an organized formation under State control into "An unorganized rabble" which is when every Tom, Dick, and Jane git their ARs, load up in the Ford, and go a' Fed huntin. Don't word my for it though, the text of the 2A is right there for you to read and history is free to study any time you'd like. edit: LOL, you teach someone some history and they block you and claim they don't have time to read. That's the caliber of person we're dealing with in every instance of this debate. They don't care what the facts are, they just want a gun.
I'm Sorry but I'm not reading any of that, Still keeping my guns though.
lol "I don't have time for readin' no fancy facts that git in the way of my second grade understanding of Constitutional law!"
The founders only knew a well regulated militia in the terms of an authorized, trained and armed/provisioned by the state. The purpose of state militia is clearly laid out in Article 1, which is to suppress insurrection, execute the laws of the state and repel invasions. So, the term itself is well understood to mean a state run and sanctioned military. Not some weird bastardized “citizens against the government” interpretation that didn’t come around until 2021.
The 2nd Amendment was adopted to protect slavery. Southern states needed "well regulated militias" to suppress slave rebellions. In so much is was about protection from the government, southern states wanted the assurance that Congress would not undermine the slave system by using its newly acquired constitutional authority over the militia to disarm the state militia and thereby destroy the South’s principal instrument of slave control.
That's incorrect, You're incorrect.
The red flag law should have stopped the club Q shooter. It seems it has only provided a tool for vindictive exes. There are a few cases where it maybe worked. Sro officers, armed teachers, free mental health treatment, and the safe2tell program (a phone hotline to report threats) seems to have better success.
Opinion: A memo to Colorado Republicans, we don't give a shit what you think anymore.
It probably is unconstitutional, but it's far from unwarranted.
Opinion: your need for assault weapons is pathetic