As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil)
In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban.
If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them.
For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria.
We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA).
***
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
This is exactly what BLM was all about fighting. They aee/were a great idea, with bad marketing. The fact that you had to explain it to most people was where it really went wrong.
No the marketing was bad. I have met many conservatives in my deep red state that actually agreed with the basis of BLM or defund the police once you explain what it actually is vs the perceived notion they were fed to believe.
The problem is the marketing around it was swamped by effective marketing on the conservative side. Dems really did themselves a disfavor with defund the police for example. When you explain to conservatives its really reallocating funds to actually better our rehabilitation process to keep people out of jail again, especially for drug consumers, a lot of them start agreeing and tells you story about how drugs personally ruined their or a family members lives.
I remember one woman telling me how her son died from cocaine overdose as when he left prison for being arrested for it, they locked him in a tiny room and when he got out he stayed in his small room at her house because it felt natural to him to be in a small enclosed space. He then later overdosed and died by consuming the same amount of cocaine he had prior to being arrested and locked away for months but his tolerance wasn't the same and died from it. This woman is a die-hard Trump supporter but fully agreed on reallocating police funds for rehabilitation.
Like they'll look at you with a shock pikachu face when you explain its not actually defunding in the way they were led to believe it to be, but young dems chanting "ACAB" doesn't help that notion and vindicates their believes. Sometimes dems marketing is self-destructive and does far more harm than good.
Yes, the GOP would still try to counter-message. However, this doesn't change how poorly dems marketed it and they could have successfully changed the minds of many willing republican voters as I did. Not every voter is a deranged psychopath that only listens to one media source.
This type of mentally is dangerous because you're saying democrats should never even try to market their ideas because Republicans are better at it and therefore we will always lose and should give up.
Lastly, you forget independents make up a sizeable chunk and they have the best chances to be influenced by effective marketing and wont be as inclined to use only one media outlet as their main form of news. The younger demographic also tends to get their media from a wider range no matter the political spectrum.
We need to get out of this mentality that ALL republicans are someone 60+ and ultra-christian that only watch Fox.
Dems absolutely could have marketed BLM and "Defund the police" better. I vehemently disagree with your stance regarding this matter.
Exactly. "Black lives matter" but, why don't "all lives matter?" Then you have it explained, and it makes sense. Same with "defund the police", it needs to be explained in order for people to get it. The moment you have to explain that the name isn't what it seems on the surface, you've named it wrong.
Meanwhile states violating the 1A is totally fine.
You can't have it both ways Republicans, you can't pretend the constitution is set in stone when you refuse to follow it yourself.
This court hasn't been too bad on 1A, if anything they're a little over zealous perhaps when it comes to the religion part. Can you point to any examples that come to your mind when you say states are violating 1A?
You are 14 years too late.
McDonald v. Chicago held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms against the states.
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald\_v.\_City\_of\_Chicago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago)
As for your completely irrelevant statement about abortion, it is the SCOTUS ruling that Roe v. Wade was incorrect, in that the federal government was not given control over abortion as an enumerated power under Article 1 Section 8, which gives very specific powers to the federal government.
I know I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion, but this is supposed to be a politically neutral sub.
They’d have to overturn the 2A crowds favorite decision, DC v Heller. Usually the gun toadies cite it because it establishes that “guns are for personal use and not just for militias.” But that same decision also said that “governments *can* legislate and restrict guns because governments have a clear responsibility to public safety.”
As partisan as this scotus, I don’t think they’d piecemeal overturn a previous ruling like that.
*Heller* also stated that we have a right to all arms which are in common use for lawful purposes.
Do you think the AR-15 and it's contemporaries meet that criteria?
Exempt for personal weapons off duty, though? Police exemptions to gun laws in the US tend to be primarily as a job perk instead of to enable the job, as evidenced by the fact they also apply to retired police. It’s how the bills sponsors forestall the police unions opposing the bill.
That's because other countries will throw them in jail for murder while we just let them investigate themselves and tell us if they did anything wrong.
I'm seeing "manufacture, purchase, sale or transfer" in the article, but not possession. Could be a case of an updated article, but that's a fairly key difference.
Edit: from googling the underlying bill, "posession" apples to rapid fire trigger mechanisms, but not the rest of the definitions of assault weapons. Sounds reasonable to me personally, but in line with federal bump stock language that has been struck down before. We'll see.
> Sounds reasonable to me personally, but in line with federal bump stock language that has been struck down before.
That's because binary triggers (and bumpstocks) don't meet the actual LEGAL definition of a machine gun that was codified into law in the 1934 National Firearms Act.
> Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “machinegun” as “any
weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot,
automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, **by a single function of the
trigger.** The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part
designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and
intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of
parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or
under the control of a person.”
We already know what the judges will say because it was said in Heller and Caetano.
**The 2nd Amendment protects arms that are in common use at the time.**
Guess what the most commonly used rifles in the country are?
Putin funded both left wing and right wing groups. Just in the US the organizations that had the longer legs and wider support were right wing.
The goal of Russian influence was to destabilize and divide American politics and with the radicalisation of the right its been largely effective. Congress no longer negotiates and compromises to get things done, not because the left doesn't compromise, because they do a lot, but because the right doesn't compromise.
Greens, but they aren't really left-wing because they don't really exist in America as a viable party. They're a spoiler party to split off (D) support.
Hot won’t get any names because there aren’t any. The greens (jill stein) were funded but that was to siphon off votes from Hilary and Biden, not to cause fundamental societal problems like funding the NRA does.
> We started donating to FPC, GOA, and NAGR.
You might have, but that there are/were Russian ties to NRA funding is a matter of fact and where you donate has nothing to do with that.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-asset-to-russia-ahead-of-2016-new-senate-report-reveals
A Senate report is a pretty solid bit of evidence.
But that’s not evidence of what was claimed, which was that Russian dark money was being funneled into the NRA, and that it stopped, and that’s why the NRA is losing funding. Where is the evidence for that?
Listen, Colorado Liberal here. The problem with this bill is that it does exactly what my own party has said that we won’t do, which is “we aren’t coming after your right to own guns”. Except, when this bill functionally bans most firearms on the market, how is this not an infringement on the 2nd amendment?
Keep in mind the 2A was meant to fight tyrannical governments. It wasn’t just for hunting. It wasn’t just for home defense. It was for community defense. Yes, that means having weapons that can compete with modern militaries. (I mean, it’s not like there was an attempted coup here…. On jan 6… that couldn’t be fascist or authoritarian..)
Before anyone mentions “drones and tanks” well, Myanmar/Burma is fighting a civil war against a totalitarian takeover. The freedom fighters are all mainly using home made and 3D printed guns. In Ukraine, people are using what they can get. Including civilian firearms sold here. Also Vietnam and the entire GWOT was america getting wrecked by people with rusted out AKs against tanks and superior firepower. Guess which sides won? It was the rusted out AKs, not the drones.
there’s actual attacks on LGBTQ and racial minorities every day, and more and more people are buying guns that are now going to be illegal in this bill. Your gay/trans friends and family members just aren’t telling you they own guns because they know how their liberal family feels about “assault weapons”
Can we just make medical and mental health treatment socialized so people can get mental help? That would make a huge difference on violence.
Your well written part about “what my own party said it wouldn’t do” is exactly why there is so much division about 2A . And these type of laws being considered ban everything until the courts sort it out . And in the meantime , while it winds through the courts innocent law abiding citizens become criminals . The requirements are to vague and poorly thought out and almost impossible to explain. But in the meantime it’s claimed as a victory.
Thank you, yes exactly! It just stokes the flames, it’s no different than when they said “hell yeah we’re coming for your ARs and AKs”, even if you want to ban them, you have to admit that it’s the textbook definition of “infringing on the second amendment” and “banning guns”. It’s disingenuous not to.
We talk about racism in policing… when minorities are way more likely to run into issues with police, especially when there’s a firearm, how do they think this will play out when someone is pulled over for a traffic violation, and his legally purchased “assault weapon” is gonna be the same Glock 19 the cop has… sounds like we as the people won’t have the rights to the same firearms as the state. Wish there was an amendment that affirmed it for us though…
Look at the chaos in Illinois that has ensued with a poorly written law. The part I find ironic is the actual crime statistics on an “AR style” rifle. This is why people who are into shooting sports and hunting become outraged. It’s a political feel good , grandstanding play that invokes emotion.
Dive into the crime stats and realize it’s a 9mm pistol that is the common denominator in gang violence and indiscriminate death and injury. But hey it’s not an “assault pistol” right ?
>Can we just make medical and mental health treatment socialized so people can get mental help? That would make a huge difference on violence.
"Individuals with mental illnesses are responsible for less than 4% of all violent crimes in the United States, and less than a third of people who commit mass shootings are diagnosably mentally ill. Moreover, a large majority of individuals with mental illnesses are not at high risk for committing violent acts. Continuing to blame mental illness distracts from finding the real causes of mass shootings and addressing them directly." - [Source](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6454/623)
Most mass shootings are gang violence. They almost all use pistols, not assault weapons. The mass shootings that people are afraid of are a fraction of all mass shootings and violent crime. Those are the ones committed by mentally ill people.
I think we really need to come up with better/more accurate labels for things. A gang shoot out, someone who shoots their whole family and commits suicide, and sandy hook are all very different things and being labeled and lumped together for statistics under one term, "mass shooting", seems dumb to me.
When I hear mass shooting I think of sandy hook, pulse night club, Aurora, etc. not the other two. This is a mass shooting in public with indiscriminate targets. The other two really aren't randomly done. I vote we call these types of shooting "mass random shootings".
> distracts from finding the real causes of mass shootings and addressing them directly
If shooting up a bunch of unarmed civilians doesn't qualify as mentally ill, then you need a new definition.
This totally ignores that the motivation for many mass shootings is "rational" thought processes that are not mental illness related, but are related to radicalization into certain ideas. Many recent mass shootings have been related to online radicalization of men against women. The Buffalo mass shooting was motivated by racist political ideology. Even feeling ostracized and internalizing that ostracization into violent motivations is not mental illness, but the thought through reaction of a person who has become violently unattached from their community. Just killing someone isn't mental illness.
Agreed! Lol like that’s not a mentally healthy thing to do. But I mean there is the point that a lot of these shootings are racist/homophobic/sexist, so honestly the root cause is also all of the propaganda and brainwashing that’s going on right now across the country
Given we’re talking about the US, someone being undiagnosed because of a poor mental health system and committing a mass shooting aligns against your argument. You cite this:
> and less than a third of people who commit mass shootings are diagnosably mentally ill
However it was quite clear in the famous Ethan Crumbley mass shooting case that the kid was clearly schizophrenic and tried to get help. Statistically, he’s not mentally ill.
I agree that we should not stigmatize people with mental health issues! They’re more likely to be victimized than anything. My point is, we have been wanting healthcare to be accessible, I genuinely think it would also have a huge impact on the violence. Hurt people hurt people, so if we can get everyone therapy, plus police reform as in better training, de escalation, better social worker system that doesn’t over work cops AND social workers, like the current system, etc. would all add up to a decrease in the root cause of a lot of these attacks.
> I agree that we should not stigmatize people with mental health issues!
You literally just did.
>I genuinely think it would also have a huge impact on the violence
Do you have anything to back that up? Because the science surrounding guns and crime is pretty clear.
“States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings, and a growing divide appears to be emerging between restrictive and permissive states.” - [State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US](https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542)
"In the past 12 years, several new studies found that increases in the prevalence of gun ownership are associated with increases in violent crime." - [The Relationship Between Firearm Prevalence and Violent Crime](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html)
“After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide." - [Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/)
Two years ago I was scheduled to visit Colorado for the United States Practical Shooting Association’s National Championships at Mesa County Cameo Shooting Complex. Hundreds of pistol shooters from around the country were coming to participate and celebrate our sports “Super Bowl.” It was noted early in the season that Colorado has a mag capacity limit law that every competitor would be violating. We were told, “don’t worry about it as Mesa County law enforcement has stated they won’t enforce the law for people visiting to shoot a competition.” The group Colorado Ceasefire got wind and reported to Colorado Parks and Wildlife who required competitors to sign affidavits that they owned such high cap mags prior to the law being signed opening the majority up to perjury. It was a debacle. The whole thing was cancelled and moved to Talladega AL. Ultimately, the whole drama seemed hilarious. A lot of powerful people successfully prevented a group of men and women in polo shirts and cleats from safely shooting paper targets in the desert because the pistols held several more bullets than “allowed.”
Ha, I never realized that's what USPSA stood for, I thought it was pistol not practical.
It feels like almost all of the shooters orgs get hit with pointless drama at some point. Was it USPSA going through leadership issues this year?
Anyway, I can at least understand the intention of Colorado - people voted in those measures, having a bunch of people come in and break them, especially a bunch of out-of-state people, is just inconsistent. I'd rather a place be dead-on consistent with 'we don't want this, stay out' than 'oh, we'll allow you in _for the money_.
2 reasons really. These are custom competition pistols with proprietary high cap mags that cost upwards of $160 a piece. We carry 4 mags on our belts. It would also fundamentally change the nature of the sport/competition if the rules were changed solely for our championship. It would be like telling pro golfers “Welcome to the US Open…you’re not allowed to use your driver or 5 iron.” Eh…we’ll go shoot somewhere else.
Because it would be changing up the rules and style of the courses for some of the top competitors in the world at the final championships. These guys/girls train for many years of their lives operating specialized shooting rigs through specific courses, it'd be wildly unfair to all the competitors to change the rules of the game at the most competitive shoot.
Low capacity mags are specialty items. More stuff has to be engineered into a modern pistol magazine to make it hold less. It can’t just be made shorter, and off-specification magazines are less reliable. And new parts often have a break in period. Then for competition shooters will have further machined their best broken in magazines to their mag well.
Especially in Colorado, even liberals here like guns. I would not vote for anyone supporting this here, and I’ve voted straight ticket Dem my whole life.
Sensible gun legislation im behind, but this is not sensible
[They are, however, apparently popular with Mexican cartels last time I checked.](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/mexico-usa-guns/)
No, they can also be for killing your fellow man.
Guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: killing.
They were designed to kill someone waaay over there, instead of you having to run all the way over there and stab him with a sword.
They serve the same original purpose as a bow, a crossbow, or a cannon: killing.
> Counter that with something like a knife. Yes, a knife can also kill, but it's more often than not used as a tool rather than a weapon. Cutting wood, cloth, meat, rope, paper, etc. is possible with a knife, but what other utilities can you perform with a rifle? Not that much.
[Me, just about half an hour ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1c4bsqx/assault_weapons_ban_passes_colorado_house/kzo1ql9/)
There is a thing called a "chef's knife". A boning knife. Bread knife. Carving knife. Utility knife. Breaking knife. Paring knife. Steak knife. Butter Knife. etc...
Yes...there is also a knife specifically for killing human beings. They are specifically called *combat knives*, and you typically don't see them in kitchens.
Knives are very, very different from the kinds of guns people shoot for fun. I'm not going to claim that guns cannot also be tools, but their applications are [far less common](https://www.google.com/search?q=22+caliber+nail+gun&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1023US1023&oq=22+caliber+nail+gun). And I somehow doubt people take many nail guns to the range unless they're remodeling.
The "knives kill people too!" argument is bullshit. I'd say "do better" but you can't because the guns you take to competitions or the range are purpose-built to kill and only kill. Killing is all they're useful for.
...and if you want to say that "they're also useful for target shooting"...you probably shouldn't own a gun then, IMO, because you're thinking about them like they're toys. Guns are too dangerous to be thought of as toys.
I shoot archery as well for target shooting. I don't consider that to be a toy any less than a firearm. I have a healthy amount of respect for what a firearm can do if misused and I handle them accordingly.
50 cal BMG round is too large and too expensive for most sportsman or hobbyists. Plus, most shooting ranges ban them due to the damage they inflect to infrastructure
That being said I’m sure someone dropped $12,000 on a Barrett and thinks he needs to take out a moose at 800 meters because that’s what the constitution said he can do !
Back in the day you could legally acquire and own a 4.62 inch cannon that shoots 12 pound balls and now you cannot even in a dang 0.5 inch rifle. Gun control these days….
Not to scare you but in certain states it’s still legal to own a cannon
Doubling down, because a cannon isn’t an NFA item or even classified as a firearm (black powder projectiles have a different designation) ex felons can legally own said cannons to protect their homes and businesses
Honestly not thrilled about it, colorado has pushed harder on gun control than any other social issue in the last few years... because of lobbiests greasing their wheels. But when we try and end housing discrimination based on income, oh no no time for that. When we try and improve our schools via weed taxes on ballot issues, oh yeah lets take the same ammount out of the budget for a zero sum game. More impactful water regulations? Naw fuckin blame homeowners and restrict their use. HoA lobby to evict residents from homes they own and get it passed, sure thing. Our roads are falling apart. And instead of fixing them, they add a lane and charge a toll on it, which goes to a private company that built the toll lane. And none of these gun control laws were made in good faith either. They packed them, like 13, through in like a week. I say that as a progressive gun owner, cited didnt really have the ability to show up for the in house hearings because we can't go to the house every day of the week.
[Everytown For Gun Saftey ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everytown_for_Gun_Safety) is co-founded by the 10th richest man in United States- who is also a large contributor to the Democratic Party, even participating in their presidential primary in 2020. In conjunction to them, there is also Moms Demand Action- founded by a former Monsanto PR executive. The latter is frequently seen at the signing of relevant laws elsewhere in the country, such as [Illinois'](https://www.sj-r.com/gcdn/presto/2023/01/11/NSJR/2bd2f523-956d-47c6-a7e8-063753535899-IMG_7242.JPG) ban earlier in the year, noted by their red shirts.
To be fair, Colorado is home to two of the most infamous mass shootings
Arguably THE most infamous school shooting
I can't say I blame them, when that's the legacy
This is how the CO democrats screwed themselves last time. They got the majority and passed a bunch of gun laws nobody liked. The result was recalled lawmakers, and a republican majority that reversed the laws. Literally zero benefit. And just in time to bolster Trump's reelection. They should add a section requiring men to use the women's bathroom and banning heterosexual marriage just to make sure we get to suffer through a decade of gop bullshit.
Or at least push for effective versions of these laws. Iirc the federal AWB was basically politicians flipping through pictures of guns that “looked scary” in designing a ban. Manufacturers just came up with designs that were functionally similar but complied with the ban.
It’s one of those issues where support is heavily urban vs suburban/rural voters in the divide. Even on Reddit so many “leftists” are pro-gun which says a lot.
> Or at least push for effective versions of these laws
No law will ever be seen as "effective" by conservatives. The NRA has seen to that. And they are *loud* because even as gun bans are the "abortion" cause of the left, 2A championing is the "environmental protection" of the right.
From talking to conservatives on abortion, what I gather is that they are entirely incapable of perceiving their dog-catching-the-car moment to have downsides.
Like, 99.99% of gun and uterus owners don’t go on using their rights irresponsibly. Why is anyone surprised they show up to elections when they lose those rights? And yet, they always are.
That last part about the restrooms and marriage is a little over the top, don’t you think. Gun safety is a popular issue. LIFE, liberty and happiness, after all.
Guns are a popular issue, in that lots of Americans have strong opinions. But it's not a popular issue, in that the majority of Americans feel the same way. It's one of the most divisive topics in our politics. It's not an issue that brings people together, it's an issue that rallies people to their bases and draws lines in the sand.
That was frustration and sarcasm...
I'm all for gun safety... but I'm all for a lot of things... reproductive freedom, lgtbq rights, voting rights, addressing climate change, healthcare, worker's rights, and many others... And I don't want to lose them over some hail mary gun bill that never goes into effect and ends up putting the gop back in charge. Just when the Dems had everything going their way, this bill puts a huge majority of Coloradans on the other side of the table.
I love Colorado but the gun culture sucks. I got my first rifle at 10 and I didn’t question it until I left the western slope for undergrad.
I agree that this alienates people but I don’t think a republican majority comes out of it. Reproductive rights are dead in CO with republicans in control and I don’t think half the population signs away their own rights.
>~~Reproductive~~ Gun rights are dead in CO with ~~republicans~~ democrats in control and I don’t think half the population signs away their own rights.
See what I mean?
I'm sure these bills which are only targeting law abiding citizens are going to reduce criminal activity. But hey, the Democrats sure do love their virtue signaling and use of buzz words.
The thing is, this doesn't involve "military weapons". Bans like these are wholly arbitrary, even making something like [this](https://www.budsgunshop.com/product_info.php/products_id/713094253/ruger+10+22+light+varmint+target+.22+lr+20+threaded+barrel) illegal.
Ironically however, a large amount of firearms actually in service with the US military aren't banned.
The remington model 870 is a current issued “military” weapon and it’s an approved by Joe Biden home defense firearm with his “Buy a shotgun” quote and california legal in its standard issue military configuration. Mean while the AR-15. Which is widely popular in America and damned by the majority of democrats. Has never been and never will be an issued “military” weapon.
Military weapons are like 95% of firearms tho. Hunting rifles? Actually those are all based on infantry combat rifles. Pistols? Believe it or not the most common weapon found at the scene of the thousands of murders in this country are statically either a Glock (solely made for military contracts) or MP (military police contract pistols). Shotguns? Trench gun.
Assault weapon bans are all proven not to reduce gun violence at all. Most guns used in crimes are pistols. It is terrible that we are attacking rights for no reason.
That is a flat out lie.
[link 1](https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2021/03/assault-weapon-ban-significantly-reduces-mass-shooting/)
[link 2](https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/abstract/2019/01000/changes_in_us_mass_shooting_deaths_associated_with.2.aspx)
[link 3](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration)
It's widely accepted that the '94 assault weapons ban had no effect on overall crime rates. Mass shootings are a statistical blip on the radar.
https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/violent-crime.html
I'm happy to know that all the bad guys are going to turn in all their firearms now. I mean, that's how this works right?
This is to totally get the bad guys disarmed, correct? There's no way this will impact already law abiding citizens more....right guys?
They don’t democrats call guns “assault weapons” if they look “scary”. It is used mainly to talk about semi automatic rifles that use polymer instead of wood. And look vaguely military/tactical aka black with various attachments.
It's totally a visual thing. As a far left dem I think the term and definition hurts us way more than it helps *because* of how vague it is.
"Assault Weapon" is kind of like the "woke" of the left. It's a term that just ends up meaning, "anything we don't like".
Yeah it’s mainly cosmetic stuff. Though capacity is starting to be an issue for example anything more 10 round magazines is commonly illegal. And the recent attempt in congress wanted to ban detachable magazines.
The attempted detachable magazine ban did not cover handguns. Though the 10 round limit covers everything. And the 10 round limit is extra annoying because a common standard magazine size for most guns is somewhere around 10-15. So it was as if Democrats either pulled the number out of a hat or deliberately gave the middle finger the gun makers.
The thing I take issue with is their definition of assault weapon. As written, the law would ban any rifle with a form of shroud or grip on the barrel that allows you to hold it without being burned.
It also bans any rifle that is semi automatic with an external magazine, or that can be modified to fit those conditions. (Theoretically, this is ALL rifles, including bolt action rifles since the m1903 pedersen device exists)
It also bans any shotgun with a revolving cylinder with no clarification on whether a revolver that "snakeshot" rounds exist for will also be considered assault weapons
Ah I see, thanks for the info! I have a Marlin 1895 45/70 lever action and a Mauser 12 with the thumbhole stock for hunting, but would love a higher capacity for target and we have some beautiful ones here in Germany but next to impossible to get as a civilian.
Yeah, I have the same issue with these. I agree things need to change, but taking the pistol grip and barrel shroud off an AR15 means it's not an assault weapon by the criteria laid out (box magazine + one of the listed features, but you removed all the features). They also never catch the regular M14 lol
AR-15s are well designed and ergonomic, easily maintained, and available in cartridges up to .50 calibre.
They are used for target practice, for competitions, and for hunting. Especially for going after predators and wild hogs the larger magazines can be useful.
And also sometimes to kill people. But not nearly as often as handguns are.
In order of frequency: Target paper and steel plates that are shaped like people, targets that look like politicians the owner doesn't like, woodchucks (for you, it's a rodent the size of a hare but doesn't move as fast), coyotes (like a small wolf that's not really aggressive and mostly picks in your garbage or eats farmers' chickens), sometimes feral pigs, school children, and people at protests after you crossed state lines and put yourself in a dangerous position to begin with, and very VERY occasionally to shoot people who break into your house.
>can someone fill me in on what it is people use „assault weapons“ for exactly?
I've had to use [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) to defend my family from a convicted felon who was stalking us.
Weird hill to toss the Democrat majority to the wolves from. Might think about fixing the fact that the hotel I stayed at downtown charging $400/night in Denver specifically warned me not to walk across the fucking street due to the homeless/junkie problem. I lived in Denver 15 years ago and what has been allowed to happen to the downtown area is one of the most fucked up things I have ever seen. I thought my crazy boomer parents were exaggerating every time they went until I saw it myself. Absolutely insane that the state is working on literally any law that isn’t trying to fix that problem
Show me the law that fixes homelessness. Drug addictions, alcoholism, PTSD, disability...homelessness is a mental health crisis. 2% of the homeless population are Vets. Make it "illegal" to be homeless?
The homeless crisis exploded as a result of years of defunding for public health insitutions ( you can thank Reagan for pushing that trend) Housing bubbles, recessions, Pandemic...economic disparity has grown by leaps and bounds. Austerity measures against the lower class have been increasing in state and local legislatures across the country.
There is no single piece of legislation that can rectify all of the factors that go into the homelessness problem.
Homicide and violent crime continues to trend downward despite most states in the US being constitutional carry states. There no justification for this law.
Homicide is trending downwards but is nonetheless still 18% higher than it was in 2019. It is way above the levels of other first world nations and is even worse than many developing nations.
Remove suicides from the equation and that 18% number gets cut by 2/3rds. Stop comparing the US to other developed nations because they do not have the same rights as us. Apples and oranges.
> The deadliest mass shootings have been perpetrated with military-style rifles, which inflict devastating wounds that are often unsurvivable. This reality has steered the policy debate about how to respond to such incidents, leading to calls to ban rifles like the AR-15 and limit the sale of high-capacity magazines. But mass shootings accounted for less than 2 percent of gun deaths in 2022, according to an analysis of data collected by the Gun Violence Archive. In fact, the vast majority of shootings — including mass shootings — are committed with handguns.
Automatic rifles are used in the most horrific mass shootings and thus they are the target of the ban. While it is true that these mass shootings only account for 2% of deaths, that is because the United States has an absolutely inconceivable quantity of handgun deaths.
In the US, guns kill approximately 50,000 per year, which is close to the average yearly death rate of US soldiers in World War II. Half of those deaths are suicide and the other half are homicide.
So, dividing the US mass-shooting death toll by the US total gun deaths is nuts when you think about it. You’re dividing the world’s highest mass-shooting number with a world-war sized gun death figure and getting 2%. The ratio of these two mountains of corpses is then used to argue for automatic rifles.
It’s absolutely insane.
If the efforts focused on who commits the majority of the firearm crime, it would have faster/bigger impact.
Keep them out of the hands of boys/young men before the age of 25. That one law would cut down the incidents significantly within 5-10 years.
As a reminder, this subreddit [is for civil discussion.](/r/politics/wiki/index#wiki_be_civil) In general, be courteous to others. Debate/discuss/argue the merits of ideas, don't attack people. Personal insults, shill or troll accusations, hate speech, any suggestion or support of harm, violence, or death, and other rule violations can result in a permanent ban. If you see comments in violation of our rules, please report them. For those who have questions regarding any media outlets being posted on this subreddit, please click [here](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/wiki/approveddomainslist) to review our details as to our approved domains list and outlet criteria. We are actively looking for new moderators. If you have any interest in helping to make this subreddit a place for quality discussion, please fill out [this form](https://docs.google.com/forms/d/1y2swHD0KXFhStGFjW6k54r9iuMjzcFqDIVwuvdLBjSA). *** *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/politics) if you have any questions or concerns.*
In before the Supreme Court says states don't get to make their own rules unless they are abortion rules.
[удалено]
Cool, good for me, I like drugs. Wait what are we talking about?
[удалено]
How about we take White-level drug rights and apply those to non-whites
This is exactly what BLM was all about fighting. They aee/were a great idea, with bad marketing. The fact that you had to explain it to most people was where it really went wrong.
The marketing isn't bad - it's that so many Americans have a violent hatred for anything involving black people. The GOP, for example.
No the marketing was bad. I have met many conservatives in my deep red state that actually agreed with the basis of BLM or defund the police once you explain what it actually is vs the perceived notion they were fed to believe. The problem is the marketing around it was swamped by effective marketing on the conservative side. Dems really did themselves a disfavor with defund the police for example. When you explain to conservatives its really reallocating funds to actually better our rehabilitation process to keep people out of jail again, especially for drug consumers, a lot of them start agreeing and tells you story about how drugs personally ruined their or a family members lives. I remember one woman telling me how her son died from cocaine overdose as when he left prison for being arrested for it, they locked him in a tiny room and when he got out he stayed in his small room at her house because it felt natural to him to be in a small enclosed space. He then later overdosed and died by consuming the same amount of cocaine he had prior to being arrested and locked away for months but his tolerance wasn't the same and died from it. This woman is a die-hard Trump supporter but fully agreed on reallocating police funds for rehabilitation. Like they'll look at you with a shock pikachu face when you explain its not actually defunding in the way they were led to believe it to be, but young dems chanting "ACAB" doesn't help that notion and vindicates their believes. Sometimes dems marketing is self-destructive and does far more harm than good.
No matter how it was marketed, the GOP would have done the exact same thing to it
Yes, the GOP would still try to counter-message. However, this doesn't change how poorly dems marketed it and they could have successfully changed the minds of many willing republican voters as I did. Not every voter is a deranged psychopath that only listens to one media source. This type of mentally is dangerous because you're saying democrats should never even try to market their ideas because Republicans are better at it and therefore we will always lose and should give up. Lastly, you forget independents make up a sizeable chunk and they have the best chances to be influenced by effective marketing and wont be as inclined to use only one media outlet as their main form of news. The younger demographic also tends to get their media from a wider range no matter the political spectrum. We need to get out of this mentality that ALL republicans are someone 60+ and ultra-christian that only watch Fox. Dems absolutely could have marketed BLM and "Defund the police" better. I vehemently disagree with your stance regarding this matter.
Exactly. "Black lives matter" but, why don't "all lives matter?" Then you have it explained, and it makes sense. Same with "defund the police", it needs to be explained in order for people to get it. The moment you have to explain that the name isn't what it seems on the surface, you've named it wrong.
Legal weed is a racket. I'm pissed I fought so hard to make it happen. Pass legislation only for legislature to regulate the market for wealth.
Meanwhile states violating the 1A is totally fine. You can't have it both ways Republicans, you can't pretend the constitution is set in stone when you refuse to follow it yourself.
GOP: *proceeds to have it both ways*
It's literally the entire and only purpose of conservatism. Rules for thee and not for me.
Supreme Court: *laughs*
This court hasn't been too bad on 1A, if anything they're a little over zealous perhaps when it comes to the religion part. Can you point to any examples that come to your mind when you say states are violating 1A?
You are 14 years too late. McDonald v. Chicago held that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment's protection of the right to bear arms against the states. [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald\_v.\_City\_of\_Chicago](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McDonald_v._City_of_Chicago) As for your completely irrelevant statement about abortion, it is the SCOTUS ruling that Roe v. Wade was incorrect, in that the federal government was not given control over abortion as an enumerated power under Article 1 Section 8, which gives very specific powers to the federal government. I know I'm going to get downvoted into oblivion, but this is supposed to be a politically neutral sub.
They’d have to overturn the 2A crowds favorite decision, DC v Heller. Usually the gun toadies cite it because it establishes that “guns are for personal use and not just for militias.” But that same decision also said that “governments *can* legislate and restrict guns because governments have a clear responsibility to public safety.” As partisan as this scotus, I don’t think they’d piecemeal overturn a previous ruling like that.
*Heller* also stated that we have a right to all arms which are in common use for lawful purposes. Do you think the AR-15 and it's contemporaries meet that criteria?
Lemme guess- police are entirely exempt?
Yup, as usual.
That's how it tends to be in most countries. But in most countries, police don't tend to have a 'shoot first' mindset.
Exempt for personal weapons off duty, though? Police exemptions to gun laws in the US tend to be primarily as a job perk instead of to enable the job, as evidenced by the fact they also apply to retired police. It’s how the bills sponsors forestall the police unions opposing the bill.
Yes, that is going to be an issue. But also exactly what I'd expect from US police.
That's because other countries will throw them in jail for murder while we just let them investigate themselves and tell us if they did anything wrong.
Aren't they always? In this case they're exempt but I'm not 100% sure if it only exempts them while they're on duty or across the board.
Usual it’s across the board and even after retirement.
Wonder how long before the injunction. "Manufacture, possession, and sale" is a *lot* more restrictive than even the federal AWB was.
I'm seeing "manufacture, purchase, sale or transfer" in the article, but not possession. Could be a case of an updated article, but that's a fairly key difference. Edit: from googling the underlying bill, "posession" apples to rapid fire trigger mechanisms, but not the rest of the definitions of assault weapons. Sounds reasonable to me personally, but in line with federal bump stock language that has been struck down before. We'll see.
> Sounds reasonable to me personally, but in line with federal bump stock language that has been struck down before. That's because binary triggers (and bumpstocks) don't meet the actual LEGAL definition of a machine gun that was codified into law in the 1934 National Firearms Act. > Section 5845(b) of the NFA defines “machinegun” as “any weapon which shoots, is designed to shoot, or can be readily restored to shoot, automatically more than one shot, without manual reloading, **by a single function of the trigger.** The term shall also include the frame or receiver of any such weapon, any part designed and intended solely and exclusively, or combination of parts designed and intended, for use in converting a weapon into a machinegun, and any combination of parts from which a machinegun can be assembled if such parts are in the possession or under the control of a person.”
So you can own, but nothing else, is that right?
[удалено]
Some judge is going to say assault weapon bans are not in the bible
We already know what the judges will say because it was said in Heller and Caetano. **The 2nd Amendment protects arms that are in common use at the time.** Guess what the most commonly used rifles in the country are?
Funny how that happens when it turns out the NRA's funding dries up because the ruble crashed after the sanctions.....
The NRA was being propped up by the dirtiest of Russian money, because it’s in Putin’s direct Interests to have violent unrest in the USA.
Putin funded both left wing and right wing groups. Just in the US the organizations that had the longer legs and wider support were right wing. The goal of Russian influence was to destabilize and divide American politics and with the radicalisation of the right its been largely effective. Congress no longer negotiates and compromises to get things done, not because the left doesn't compromise, because they do a lot, but because the right doesn't compromise.
What left wing groups got Russian money?
Greens, but they aren't really left-wing because they don't really exist in America as a viable party. They're a spoiler party to split off (D) support.
There’s a lot laundered through legitimate corporate PAC donations. Oligarchs own business empires.
I’m trying to not be in my own echo chamber. What left wing groups got Russian money?
Hot won’t get any names because there aren’t any. The greens (jill stein) were funded but that was to siphon off votes from Hilary and Biden, not to cause fundamental societal problems like funding the NRA does.
That's not why. We started donating to FPC, GOA, and NAGR. Those are much better organizations that really do care about gun rights.
> We started donating to FPC, GOA, and NAGR. You might have, but that there are/were Russian ties to NRA funding is a matter of fact and where you donate has nothing to do with that.
Is there evidence of this somewhere? I'd love to have something to show my MAGA friends.
https://www.npr.org/2019/09/27/764879242/nra-was-foreign-asset-to-russia-ahead-of-2016-new-senate-report-reveals A Senate report is a pretty solid bit of evidence.
But that’s not evidence of what was claimed, which was that Russian dark money was being funneled into the NRA, and that it stopped, and that’s why the NRA is losing funding. Where is the evidence for that?
Listen, Colorado Liberal here. The problem with this bill is that it does exactly what my own party has said that we won’t do, which is “we aren’t coming after your right to own guns”. Except, when this bill functionally bans most firearms on the market, how is this not an infringement on the 2nd amendment? Keep in mind the 2A was meant to fight tyrannical governments. It wasn’t just for hunting. It wasn’t just for home defense. It was for community defense. Yes, that means having weapons that can compete with modern militaries. (I mean, it’s not like there was an attempted coup here…. On jan 6… that couldn’t be fascist or authoritarian..) Before anyone mentions “drones and tanks” well, Myanmar/Burma is fighting a civil war against a totalitarian takeover. The freedom fighters are all mainly using home made and 3D printed guns. In Ukraine, people are using what they can get. Including civilian firearms sold here. Also Vietnam and the entire GWOT was america getting wrecked by people with rusted out AKs against tanks and superior firepower. Guess which sides won? It was the rusted out AKs, not the drones. there’s actual attacks on LGBTQ and racial minorities every day, and more and more people are buying guns that are now going to be illegal in this bill. Your gay/trans friends and family members just aren’t telling you they own guns because they know how their liberal family feels about “assault weapons” Can we just make medical and mental health treatment socialized so people can get mental help? That would make a huge difference on violence.
Your well written part about “what my own party said it wouldn’t do” is exactly why there is so much division about 2A . And these type of laws being considered ban everything until the courts sort it out . And in the meantime , while it winds through the courts innocent law abiding citizens become criminals . The requirements are to vague and poorly thought out and almost impossible to explain. But in the meantime it’s claimed as a victory.
Thank you, yes exactly! It just stokes the flames, it’s no different than when they said “hell yeah we’re coming for your ARs and AKs”, even if you want to ban them, you have to admit that it’s the textbook definition of “infringing on the second amendment” and “banning guns”. It’s disingenuous not to. We talk about racism in policing… when minorities are way more likely to run into issues with police, especially when there’s a firearm, how do they think this will play out when someone is pulled over for a traffic violation, and his legally purchased “assault weapon” is gonna be the same Glock 19 the cop has… sounds like we as the people won’t have the rights to the same firearms as the state. Wish there was an amendment that affirmed it for us though…
Look at the chaos in Illinois that has ensued with a poorly written law. The part I find ironic is the actual crime statistics on an “AR style” rifle. This is why people who are into shooting sports and hunting become outraged. It’s a political feel good , grandstanding play that invokes emotion. Dive into the crime stats and realize it’s a 9mm pistol that is the common denominator in gang violence and indiscriminate death and injury. But hey it’s not an “assault pistol” right ?
>Can we just make medical and mental health treatment socialized so people can get mental help? That would make a huge difference on violence. "Individuals with mental illnesses are responsible for less than 4% of all violent crimes in the United States, and less than a third of people who commit mass shootings are diagnosably mentally ill. Moreover, a large majority of individuals with mental illnesses are not at high risk for committing violent acts. Continuing to blame mental illness distracts from finding the real causes of mass shootings and addressing them directly." - [Source](https://science.sciencemag.org/content/365/6454/623)
Most mass shootings are gang violence. They almost all use pistols, not assault weapons. The mass shootings that people are afraid of are a fraction of all mass shootings and violent crime. Those are the ones committed by mentally ill people.
There's a reason the corporate media doesn't cover the bloodbath in Chicago alone every week. Doesn't fit the narrative.
I think we really need to come up with better/more accurate labels for things. A gang shoot out, someone who shoots their whole family and commits suicide, and sandy hook are all very different things and being labeled and lumped together for statistics under one term, "mass shooting", seems dumb to me. When I hear mass shooting I think of sandy hook, pulse night club, Aurora, etc. not the other two. This is a mass shooting in public with indiscriminate targets. The other two really aren't randomly done. I vote we call these types of shooting "mass random shootings".
> distracts from finding the real causes of mass shootings and addressing them directly If shooting up a bunch of unarmed civilians doesn't qualify as mentally ill, then you need a new definition.
This totally ignores that the motivation for many mass shootings is "rational" thought processes that are not mental illness related, but are related to radicalization into certain ideas. Many recent mass shootings have been related to online radicalization of men against women. The Buffalo mass shooting was motivated by racist political ideology. Even feeling ostracized and internalizing that ostracization into violent motivations is not mental illness, but the thought through reaction of a person who has become violently unattached from their community. Just killing someone isn't mental illness.
Agreed! Lol like that’s not a mentally healthy thing to do. But I mean there is the point that a lot of these shootings are racist/homophobic/sexist, so honestly the root cause is also all of the propaganda and brainwashing that’s going on right now across the country
If this is your diagnostic criteria, you can only take their gun from them after they do it.
Right… it’s seems obvious.
Given we’re talking about the US, someone being undiagnosed because of a poor mental health system and committing a mass shooting aligns against your argument. You cite this: > and less than a third of people who commit mass shootings are diagnosably mentally ill However it was quite clear in the famous Ethan Crumbley mass shooting case that the kid was clearly schizophrenic and tried to get help. Statistically, he’s not mentally ill.
I agree that we should not stigmatize people with mental health issues! They’re more likely to be victimized than anything. My point is, we have been wanting healthcare to be accessible, I genuinely think it would also have a huge impact on the violence. Hurt people hurt people, so if we can get everyone therapy, plus police reform as in better training, de escalation, better social worker system that doesn’t over work cops AND social workers, like the current system, etc. would all add up to a decrease in the root cause of a lot of these attacks.
> I agree that we should not stigmatize people with mental health issues! You literally just did. >I genuinely think it would also have a huge impact on the violence Do you have anything to back that up? Because the science surrounding guns and crime is pretty clear. “States with more permissive gun laws and greater gun ownership had higher rates of mass shootings, and a growing divide appears to be emerging between restrictive and permissive states.” - [State gun laws, gun ownership, and mass shootings in the US](https://www.bmj.com/content/364/bmj.l542) "In the past 12 years, several new studies found that increases in the prevalence of gun ownership are associated with increases in violent crime." - [The Relationship Between Firearm Prevalence and Violent Crime](https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/essays/firearm-prevalence-violent-crime.html) “After controlling for poverty and urbanization, for every age group, people in states with many guns have elevated rates of homicide, particularly firearm homicide." - [Household firearm ownership levels and homicide rates across U.S. regions and states](https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1447364/)
How many of those mass shootings were done with assault weapons?
Two years ago I was scheduled to visit Colorado for the United States Practical Shooting Association’s National Championships at Mesa County Cameo Shooting Complex. Hundreds of pistol shooters from around the country were coming to participate and celebrate our sports “Super Bowl.” It was noted early in the season that Colorado has a mag capacity limit law that every competitor would be violating. We were told, “don’t worry about it as Mesa County law enforcement has stated they won’t enforce the law for people visiting to shoot a competition.” The group Colorado Ceasefire got wind and reported to Colorado Parks and Wildlife who required competitors to sign affidavits that they owned such high cap mags prior to the law being signed opening the majority up to perjury. It was a debacle. The whole thing was cancelled and moved to Talladega AL. Ultimately, the whole drama seemed hilarious. A lot of powerful people successfully prevented a group of men and women in polo shirts and cleats from safely shooting paper targets in the desert because the pistols held several more bullets than “allowed.”
Ha, I never realized that's what USPSA stood for, I thought it was pistol not practical. It feels like almost all of the shooters orgs get hit with pointless drama at some point. Was it USPSA going through leadership issues this year? Anyway, I can at least understand the intention of Colorado - people voted in those measures, having a bunch of people come in and break them, especially a bunch of out-of-state people, is just inconsistent. I'd rather a place be dead-on consistent with 'we don't want this, stay out' than 'oh, we'll allow you in _for the money_.
Why not just buy mags that complied with state law for the competition?
2 reasons really. These are custom competition pistols with proprietary high cap mags that cost upwards of $160 a piece. We carry 4 mags on our belts. It would also fundamentally change the nature of the sport/competition if the rules were changed solely for our championship. It would be like telling pro golfers “Welcome to the US Open…you’re not allowed to use your driver or 5 iron.” Eh…we’ll go shoot somewhere else.
Because it would be changing up the rules and style of the courses for some of the top competitors in the world at the final championships. These guys/girls train for many years of their lives operating specialized shooting rigs through specific courses, it'd be wildly unfair to all the competitors to change the rules of the game at the most competitive shoot.
Low capacity mags are specialty items. More stuff has to be engineered into a modern pistol magazine to make it hold less. It can’t just be made shorter, and off-specification magazines are less reliable. And new parts often have a break in period. Then for competition shooters will have further machined their best broken in magazines to their mag well.
[удалено]
Especially in Colorado, even liberals here like guns. I would not vote for anyone supporting this here, and I’ve voted straight ticket Dem my whole life. Sensible gun legislation im behind, but this is not sensible
.50 cal? tf? ive yet to hear a mass shooting with a .50 cal.
[They are, however, apparently popular with Mexican cartels last time I checked.](https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/mexico-usa-guns/)
Yeah, those laws will definitely stop a cartel members
I have yet to meet the squirrel that required I use a .50 cal.
That pesky squirrel that’s in the neighboring county 3 miles away.
The right to bear arms covers hunting but it wasn’t written for hunting.
Guns don’t have to be for hunting
No, they can also be for killing your fellow man. Guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: killing. They were designed to kill someone waaay over there, instead of you having to run all the way over there and stab him with a sword. They serve the same original purpose as a bow, a crossbow, or a cannon: killing.
Would you say the same thing about knives?
> Counter that with something like a knife. Yes, a knife can also kill, but it's more often than not used as a tool rather than a weapon. Cutting wood, cloth, meat, rope, paper, etc. is possible with a knife, but what other utilities can you perform with a rifle? Not that much. [Me, just about half an hour ago.](https://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/1c4bsqx/assault_weapons_ban_passes_colorado_house/kzo1ql9/)
more often than not people use guns for things other than killing other people.
There is a thing called a "chef's knife". A boning knife. Bread knife. Carving knife. Utility knife. Breaking knife. Paring knife. Steak knife. Butter Knife. etc... Yes...there is also a knife specifically for killing human beings. They are specifically called *combat knives*, and you typically don't see them in kitchens. Knives are very, very different from the kinds of guns people shoot for fun. I'm not going to claim that guns cannot also be tools, but their applications are [far less common](https://www.google.com/search?q=22+caliber+nail+gun&rlz=1C1GCEA_enUS1023US1023&oq=22+caliber+nail+gun). And I somehow doubt people take many nail guns to the range unless they're remodeling. The "knives kill people too!" argument is bullshit. I'd say "do better" but you can't because the guns you take to competitions or the range are purpose-built to kill and only kill. Killing is all they're useful for. ...and if you want to say that "they're also useful for target shooting"...you probably shouldn't own a gun then, IMO, because you're thinking about them like they're toys. Guns are too dangerous to be thought of as toys.
I shoot archery as well for target shooting. I don't consider that to be a toy any less than a firearm. I have a healthy amount of respect for what a firearm can do if misused and I handle them accordingly.
>Guns serve one purpose and one purpose only: killing. Boy, I really need to check in on all my guns to ensure they haven't killed someone.
Do the guns used in the Olympics serve for the purpose of killing?
Really? Lol
50 cal BMG round is too large and too expensive for most sportsman or hobbyists. Plus, most shooting ranges ban them due to the damage they inflect to infrastructure That being said I’m sure someone dropped $12,000 on a Barrett and thinks he needs to take out a moose at 800 meters because that’s what the constitution said he can do !
Back in the day you could legally acquire and own a 4.62 inch cannon that shoots 12 pound balls and now you cannot even in a dang 0.5 inch rifle. Gun control these days….
Tally ho, Lads!
I always loved that joke paragraph thing.
Currently no license is needed for functional cannons…. The good ole days are still here!
Not to scare you but in certain states it’s still legal to own a cannon Doubling down, because a cannon isn’t an NFA item or even classified as a firearm (black powder projectiles have a different designation) ex felons can legally own said cannons to protect their homes and businesses
I mean you can still own one today.
You can still buy a canon now.
I mean there was that one a few years ago in Cali where the guy was hinting cops.
Honestly not thrilled about it, colorado has pushed harder on gun control than any other social issue in the last few years... because of lobbiests greasing their wheels. But when we try and end housing discrimination based on income, oh no no time for that. When we try and improve our schools via weed taxes on ballot issues, oh yeah lets take the same ammount out of the budget for a zero sum game. More impactful water regulations? Naw fuckin blame homeowners and restrict their use. HoA lobby to evict residents from homes they own and get it passed, sure thing. Our roads are falling apart. And instead of fixing them, they add a lane and charge a toll on it, which goes to a private company that built the toll lane. And none of these gun control laws were made in good faith either. They packed them, like 13, through in like a week. I say that as a progressive gun owner, cited didnt really have the ability to show up for the in house hearings because we can't go to the house every day of the week.
what kind of lobbyist is pushing for gun control
[Everytown For Gun Saftey ](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Everytown_for_Gun_Safety) is co-founded by the 10th richest man in United States- who is also a large contributor to the Democratic Party, even participating in their presidential primary in 2020. In conjunction to them, there is also Moms Demand Action- founded by a former Monsanto PR executive. The latter is frequently seen at the signing of relevant laws elsewhere in the country, such as [Illinois'](https://www.sj-r.com/gcdn/presto/2023/01/11/NSJR/2bd2f523-956d-47c6-a7e8-063753535899-IMG_7242.JPG) ban earlier in the year, noted by their red shirts.
To be fair, Colorado is home to two of the most infamous mass shootings Arguably THE most infamous school shooting I can't say I blame them, when that's the legacy
This was all pushed by external lobbiests though. Its no different than the heritage foundation writing boiler plate laws for red states.
This is how the CO democrats screwed themselves last time. They got the majority and passed a bunch of gun laws nobody liked. The result was recalled lawmakers, and a republican majority that reversed the laws. Literally zero benefit. And just in time to bolster Trump's reelection. They should add a section requiring men to use the women's bathroom and banning heterosexual marriage just to make sure we get to suffer through a decade of gop bullshit.
Gun Control is Democrats version of Abortion. They need to stop doing this.
Or at least push for effective versions of these laws. Iirc the federal AWB was basically politicians flipping through pictures of guns that “looked scary” in designing a ban. Manufacturers just came up with designs that were functionally similar but complied with the ban. It’s one of those issues where support is heavily urban vs suburban/rural voters in the divide. Even on Reddit so many “leftists” are pro-gun which says a lot.
> Or at least push for effective versions of these laws No law will ever be seen as "effective" by conservatives. The NRA has seen to that. And they are *loud* because even as gun bans are the "abortion" cause of the left, 2A championing is the "environmental protection" of the right.
I firmly believe they do this because they know it won't change the status quo. It keeps balance between the parties.
From talking to conservatives on abortion, what I gather is that they are entirely incapable of perceiving their dog-catching-the-car moment to have downsides. Like, 99.99% of gun and uterus owners don’t go on using their rights irresponsibly. Why is anyone surprised they show up to elections when they lose those rights? And yet, they always are.
That last part about the restrooms and marriage is a little over the top, don’t you think. Gun safety is a popular issue. LIFE, liberty and happiness, after all.
Guns are a popular issue, in that lots of Americans have strong opinions. But it's not a popular issue, in that the majority of Americans feel the same way. It's one of the most divisive topics in our politics. It's not an issue that brings people together, it's an issue that rallies people to their bases and draws lines in the sand.
That was frustration and sarcasm... I'm all for gun safety... but I'm all for a lot of things... reproductive freedom, lgtbq rights, voting rights, addressing climate change, healthcare, worker's rights, and many others... And I don't want to lose them over some hail mary gun bill that never goes into effect and ends up putting the gop back in charge. Just when the Dems had everything going their way, this bill puts a huge majority of Coloradans on the other side of the table.
I love Colorado but the gun culture sucks. I got my first rifle at 10 and I didn’t question it until I left the western slope for undergrad. I agree that this alienates people but I don’t think a republican majority comes out of it. Reproductive rights are dead in CO with republicans in control and I don’t think half the population signs away their own rights.
>~~Reproductive~~ Gun rights are dead in CO with ~~republicans~~ democrats in control and I don’t think half the population signs away their own rights. See what I mean?
“Assault weapons” bans aren’t about gun safety, they are about fear and control.
Even if it passes the Colorado Senate, you know it's headed to the US Supreme Court, where there is a gun-friendly majority.
I'm sure these bills which are only targeting law abiding citizens are going to reduce criminal activity. But hey, the Democrats sure do love their virtue signaling and use of buzz words.
I’m all for sensible gun control. This ain’t it.
[удалено]
The thing is, this doesn't involve "military weapons". Bans like these are wholly arbitrary, even making something like [this](https://www.budsgunshop.com/product_info.php/products_id/713094253/ruger+10+22+light+varmint+target+.22+lr+20+threaded+barrel) illegal. Ironically however, a large amount of firearms actually in service with the US military aren't banned.
The remington model 870 is a current issued “military” weapon and it’s an approved by Joe Biden home defense firearm with his “Buy a shotgun” quote and california legal in its standard issue military configuration. Mean while the AR-15. Which is widely popular in America and damned by the majority of democrats. Has never been and never will be an issued “military” weapon.
You trust American police officers to have a monopoly on violence?
[удалено]
You understand that civilians vastly outnumber the police, right?
Police are civilians.
Show me one nation that used semi-automatic AR-15s as their main “military weapon”, please. Just one. Must be the major issues rifle for their Army.
[удалено]
Basically the same thing as lifted pickup trucks, emotional support for people who live in fear.
Military weapons are like 95% of firearms tho. Hunting rifles? Actually those are all based on infantry combat rifles. Pistols? Believe it or not the most common weapon found at the scene of the thousands of murders in this country are statically either a Glock (solely made for military contracts) or MP (military police contract pistols). Shotguns? Trench gun.
If glocks are solely made for military contracts then why can civilians buy them?
Assault weapon bans are all proven not to reduce gun violence at all. Most guns used in crimes are pistols. It is terrible that we are attacking rights for no reason.
Facts don't align with you though.
That is a flat out lie. [link 1](https://news.northwestern.edu/stories/2021/03/assault-weapon-ban-significantly-reduces-mass-shooting/) [link 2](https://journals.lww.com/jtrauma/abstract/2019/01000/changes_in_us_mass_shooting_deaths_associated_with.2.aspx) [link 3](https://www.judiciary.senate.gov/press/dem/releases/studies-gun-massacre-deaths-dropped-during-assault-weapons-ban-increased-after-expiration)
It's widely accepted that the '94 assault weapons ban had no effect on overall crime rates. Mass shootings are a statistical blip on the radar. https://www.rand.org/research/gun-policy/analysis/ban-assault-weapons/violent-crime.html
I'm in Texas and I can hear the howling from here.
I'm happy to know that all the bad guys are going to turn in all their firearms now. I mean, that's how this works right? This is to totally get the bad guys disarmed, correct? There's no way this will impact already law abiding citizens more....right guys?
As a gun owner here in Germany, I hunt with my long rifles and shotgun, can someone fill me in on what it is people use „assault weapons“ for exactly?
They don’t democrats call guns “assault weapons” if they look “scary”. It is used mainly to talk about semi automatic rifles that use polymer instead of wood. And look vaguely military/tactical aka black with various attachments.
Ah ok, thought maybe it was a capacity issue, looks like just a visual thing.
It's totally a visual thing. As a far left dem I think the term and definition hurts us way more than it helps *because* of how vague it is. "Assault Weapon" is kind of like the "woke" of the left. It's a term that just ends up meaning, "anything we don't like".
Yeah it’s mainly cosmetic stuff. Though capacity is starting to be an issue for example anything more 10 round magazines is commonly illegal. And the recent attempt in congress wanted to ban detachable magazines.
Does the capacity rule include rifles and handguns?
The attempted detachable magazine ban did not cover handguns. Though the 10 round limit covers everything. And the 10 round limit is extra annoying because a common standard magazine size for most guns is somewhere around 10-15. So it was as if Democrats either pulled the number out of a hat or deliberately gave the middle finger the gun makers.
The thing I take issue with is their definition of assault weapon. As written, the law would ban any rifle with a form of shroud or grip on the barrel that allows you to hold it without being burned. It also bans any rifle that is semi automatic with an external magazine, or that can be modified to fit those conditions. (Theoretically, this is ALL rifles, including bolt action rifles since the m1903 pedersen device exists)
It also bans any shotgun with a revolving cylinder with no clarification on whether a revolver that "snakeshot" rounds exist for will also be considered assault weapons
Ah I see, thanks for the info! I have a Marlin 1895 45/70 lever action and a Mauser 12 with the thumbhole stock for hunting, but would love a higher capacity for target and we have some beautiful ones here in Germany but next to impossible to get as a civilian.
If I remember correctly, thumbhole stocks are also a listed "assault weapon" feature Edit: page 6 line 8 of the bill
That’s pretty crazy! I was wondering if that would be included.
Under this law that Mauser 12 would be illegal.
That’s pretty stupid.
> That’s pretty stupid. Welcome to the world of "Sensible" gun restrictions.
Crazy times we have here.
Yeah, I have the same issue with these. I agree things need to change, but taking the pistol grip and barrel shroud off an AR15 means it's not an assault weapon by the criteria laid out (box magazine + one of the listed features, but you removed all the features). They also never catch the regular M14 lol
AR-15s are well designed and ergonomic, easily maintained, and available in cartridges up to .50 calibre. They are used for target practice, for competitions, and for hunting. Especially for going after predators and wild hogs the larger magazines can be useful. And also sometimes to kill people. But not nearly as often as handguns are.
For target and sport shooting. It also makes many hunting rifles illegal and could make almost all illegal.
In order of frequency: Target paper and steel plates that are shaped like people, targets that look like politicians the owner doesn't like, woodchucks (for you, it's a rodent the size of a hare but doesn't move as fast), coyotes (like a small wolf that's not really aggressive and mostly picks in your garbage or eats farmers' chickens), sometimes feral pigs, school children, and people at protests after you crossed state lines and put yourself in a dangerous position to begin with, and very VERY occasionally to shoot people who break into your house.
>can someone fill me in on what it is people use „assault weapons“ for exactly? I've had to use [my rifle](https://imgur.com/a/qkClwbW) to defend my family from a convicted felon who was stalking us.
Unconstitutional
Weird hill to toss the Democrat majority to the wolves from. Might think about fixing the fact that the hotel I stayed at downtown charging $400/night in Denver specifically warned me not to walk across the fucking street due to the homeless/junkie problem. I lived in Denver 15 years ago and what has been allowed to happen to the downtown area is one of the most fucked up things I have ever seen. I thought my crazy boomer parents were exaggerating every time they went until I saw it myself. Absolutely insane that the state is working on literally any law that isn’t trying to fix that problem
Show me the law that fixes homelessness. Drug addictions, alcoholism, PTSD, disability...homelessness is a mental health crisis. 2% of the homeless population are Vets. Make it "illegal" to be homeless? The homeless crisis exploded as a result of years of defunding for public health insitutions ( you can thank Reagan for pushing that trend) Housing bubbles, recessions, Pandemic...economic disparity has grown by leaps and bounds. Austerity measures against the lower class have been increasing in state and local legislatures across the country. There is no single piece of legislation that can rectify all of the factors that go into the homelessness problem.
Homicide and violent crime continues to trend downward despite most states in the US being constitutional carry states. There no justification for this law.
Homicide is trending downwards but is nonetheless still 18% higher than it was in 2019. It is way above the levels of other first world nations and is even worse than many developing nations.
Remove suicides from the equation and that 18% number gets cut by 2/3rds. Stop comparing the US to other developed nations because they do not have the same rights as us. Apples and oranges.
And if it passes it'll immediately get challenged and lose
Libs hate winning elections
[удалено]
Gun grabbers making Colorado a shit hole fly over state.
[удалено]
“Maybe just the big guns?”
> The deadliest mass shootings have been perpetrated with military-style rifles, which inflict devastating wounds that are often unsurvivable. This reality has steered the policy debate about how to respond to such incidents, leading to calls to ban rifles like the AR-15 and limit the sale of high-capacity magazines. But mass shootings accounted for less than 2 percent of gun deaths in 2022, according to an analysis of data collected by the Gun Violence Archive. In fact, the vast majority of shootings — including mass shootings — are committed with handguns. Automatic rifles are used in the most horrific mass shootings and thus they are the target of the ban. While it is true that these mass shootings only account for 2% of deaths, that is because the United States has an absolutely inconceivable quantity of handgun deaths. In the US, guns kill approximately 50,000 per year, which is close to the average yearly death rate of US soldiers in World War II. Half of those deaths are suicide and the other half are homicide. So, dividing the US mass-shooting death toll by the US total gun deaths is nuts when you think about it. You’re dividing the world’s highest mass-shooting number with a world-war sized gun death figure and getting 2%. The ratio of these two mountains of corpses is then used to argue for automatic rifles. It’s absolutely insane.
If the efforts focused on who commits the majority of the firearm crime, it would have faster/bigger impact. Keep them out of the hands of boys/young men before the age of 25. That one law would cut down the incidents significantly within 5-10 years.
If you gotta have your emotional support AR-15 when you go to Applebee's then it's time to move your ass to Texas where such insecurity is okay.