409
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

Colorado’s Democratic-controlled House on Sunday passed a bill that would ban the sale and transfer of semiautomatic firearms, a major step for the legislation after roughly the same bill was swiftly killed by Democrats last year. 

The bill, which passed on a 35-27 vote, is now on its way to the Democratic-led state Senate. If it passes there, it could bring Colorado in line with 10 other states — including California, New York and Illinois — that have prohibitions on semiautomatic guns. 

But even in a state plagued by some of the nation’s worst mass shootings, such legislation faces headwinds.

Colorado’s political history is purple, shifting blue only recently. The bill’s chances of success in the state Senate are lower than they were in the House, where Democrats have a 46-19 majority and a bigger far-left flank. Gov. Jared Polis, also a Democrat, has indicated his wariness over such a ban.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] brygphilomena@lemmy.world 93 points 7 months ago

I'll give up my guns when the cops do it first.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 13 points 7 months ago

You gonna win a shootout with cops?

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 10 points 7 months ago

The goal isn't to beat the cops. It's to defend against neonazis.

Do you think the cops are gonna disarm neonazis? Or will they just use gun bans as an excuse to murder more black people?

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago

Guns dont defend shit. We have all the guns, its not going well. A gun ban at least slows down supply. And starts a long path to becoming like developed countries that arent murderous gun nuts like we are.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Tell you what. How about you pass a law to disarm people based on their hateful ideologies FIRST. Make Nazism illegal, then disarm, prosecute, and imprison the neonazis, by force of law. They are currently trying to ignite a new Civil War against America, yet you want to disarm the rest of us in the face of that.

Fix that, then we can discuss disarming law abiding citizens.

You gonna address the question I asked? Cops only use gun bans as an excuse to kill more black people.

[-] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 months ago

Imagine trusting a neoliberal government to take the guns away from those leftists deem dangerous. You really don't see how that might go awry?

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

I don't see you offering a better suggestion.

[-] CancerMancer@sh.itjust.works 5 points 7 months ago

I didn't think I needed to state the obvious: armed leftists are much more difficult to oppress.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 4 points 7 months ago

I think youd have a hard time defining and identifying nazis in legal terms.

And i dont trust any gun owner to be a law abiding citizen, we're all animals that can get very emotional. And we have the results of that in our horrendous homicide rate.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Really? Because Germany managed it. Nazism is illegal there. They prosecute anyone who professes Nazi ideas. I don't care how hard it would be. You think confiscating all the guns is easier?

I don't care who you trust. I care that this nation is too foolish and cowardly to root out the cancer it has harbored since long before it was founded. Ban sympathy for the Confederacy. Ban Nazi ideology. Prosecute those who profess it. Ruin those who fund them. Cleanse the police departments of all the Nazi cops. We will never be free of them until the day we make their ideologies illegal.

Until then, piss off trying to disarm the millions of people who only wish to defend their homes from exactly those people pushing for civil war.

Gee whiz, you sure don't want to address the fact that cops only use gun bans as an excuse to murder black people.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

I would love to do how Germany does, no one gets a gun.

Most of their nazi ban entails antisemitism, which i dont think covers a lot of people you wouldnt want to have guns. It also entails self labeling nazis, people wearing nazi uniforms, using swastikas, etc. Again, i dont think thats gonna cover most of the people youd want it to. Its better than nothing and id support it here, but its not gonna be very effective at keeping guns away from people with various nazi beliefs.

Gee whiz, you sure don’t want to address the fact that cops only use gun bans as an excuse to murder black people.

What gun bans?

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

Every gun ban we've ever passed.

If you want to ban guns, disarm the Nazis first. That's all I ask.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

We dont have any gun bans. The countries that do, like Germany, have a lot less cops killing people, including black people. Im saying a sweeping gun ban takes guns away from more people with nazi ideologies than a ban on just self identifying nazis.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Then you haven't been paying attention.

load more comments (1 replies)
[-] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 3 points 7 months ago

There a better way: if you don't have a valid reason* to have a gun, you can't have it. If you have a valid reason* but not to carry it, you can't carry it and you can only use it in a target range.

  • Hunting, basically.
[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

All I see is you not thinking about anything I've said.

[-] bufalo1973@lemmy.ml 1 points 7 months ago

Many countries do almost what I said and are safer that the US by far.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

You actually downvoted the idea of making Nazism illegal. How does that make you feel?

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago

I could go for a law that states something like:

To the degree that you attempt to control or suppress another person or group, you may be controlled or suppressed accordingly.

This is magical law, but we may as well make it mundane law, too.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Do you think the cops are gonna disarm neonazis? Or will they just use gun bans as an excuse to murder more black people?

You think black people with firearms are less likely to be shot by police?

The goal isn’t to beat the cops. It’s to defend against neonazis.

How's that going? Because from the outside, it looks like this.

image

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Do you not think cops are more likely to kill black people if there's a gun ban regardless whether they are armed?

Yes, I'm well aware of how it looks. They are trying to use public massacres to ignite a civil war. Of course it's horrible.

And yet we do almost nothing to prosecute their talking heads who incite those same shootings and the billionaires who fund their rallies. Because hate speech is still somehow free speech. We need to clean up the loopholes in the first amendment before addressing the second.

Trump is campaigning to become the next fuhrer, not president, yet you dingalings are bound and determined to make sure that we're disarmed in advance. How stupid is that?

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

Do you not think cops are more likely to kill black people if there’s a gun ban regardless whether they are armed?

That's some wicked grammar there, but... no? Why would the cops kill less black people if specific firearms are banned?

They are trying to use school shootings to ignite a civil war.

What?

Also, I feel Americans need to see this, and maybe consider that all these children dying isn't necessary for their hobby or 'self defense' claims:

USA has eight times the rate (as in percentage, not total_ of firearms deaths as Canada, which has more strict firearms rules. Canada has one-hundred times the rate of firearms deaths of the UK, which has more strict firearms rules.

That means the USA has 800 times the rare of firearms deaths as the UK. So when this mysterious 'civil war' happens, how many children will have died so that you can have that semi-auto AR-15 to fight off the drones of the American military, or the armoured vehicles of your cops?

Instead of pretending One Man With A Gun is going to do something, maybe try voting locally. Maybe try de-arming your cops?

[-] pokemaster787@ani.social 10 points 7 months ago

Instead of pretending One Man With A Gun is going to do something

I used to agree with this train of thought, why be armed when the government has tanks?

But the realities of the past several years have shown us that an armed rebellion can be significantly more powerful. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, look at Myanmar today where the rebel groups are literally 3D printing carbines. A guerilla group with small arms can put serious pressure on a modern military. Will lots of them die? Probably. Will they "win"? Probably not, but they could easily wear down the enemy with attrition. When you need to move a couple dozen men with rifles it's an entirely different game than coordinating 12 tanks and 500 men, you can employ completely different tactics. Especially on your home turf that you know inside and out.

Is an armed rebellion happening anytime soon? I sure hope not. But the threat that an armed populace can at the least put some serious hurt on a military/government is a deterrent to tyranny. Just the possibility of it is a huge deterrent, compared to authoritarian countries where citizens aren't armed and get run over by tanks.

I'm not saying gun violence isn't a huge problem, but saying armed citizenry is zero deterrent is just factually untrue.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago

But the realities of the past several years have shown us that an armed rebellion can be significantly more powerful. Look at Iraq and Afghanistan, look at Myanmar today where the rebel groups are literally 3D printing carbines.

Couple things, but mostly: 1. How free are people in Iraq and Afghanistan, exactly? 2. Rebel groups are illegally printing carbines. The legality of it is meaningless. They aren't taking on the US military on it's own soil.

If you guys are saying that making death-by-gun the most common form of death for children in the USA, even above cars is worth it for some maybe-one-day-we'll-be-a-militia-group seems like the most sad and specious logic I've ever heard. I'm a parent and theoretically fighting some imaginary war (which we've been hearing about for decade after decade...) takes a definite backseat to my kids making it through school un-shot-at.

And virtually every armed rebellion that worked happened in a nation where firearms were heavily restricted, so the laws are meaningless. Hell you could only own a smoothbore shotgun at most in the soviet union, and last I checked a whole bunch of those countries had armed rebellions.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 8 points 7 months ago

I'm not arguing against gun bans because I love guns. I'm arguing against them because humanity has a serious problem with fascism. I'm pointing out that fascists are heavily armed. The cops are almost entirely fascist sympathizers. They selectively enforce gun bans across racial and ideological lines, just like the Nazis did in Germany. They don't take guns away from Nazis. Instead, they use those laws to gun down minorities.

Oh hey, who's that? Why, is that a psychopathic fascist running for president? I wonder what would happen if he won again, and minorities and leftists were selectively disarmed and his neo-nazi followers weren't? But how could that ever happen? Cops are there to protect us from bad guys, right?

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 6 points 7 months ago

Yeah. Violence is generally not the answer. But when it is, it's the only answer.

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 7 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Compare your image above with something extremely similar happening systematically, over and over and over as a populace is rounded up and shipped off to camps.

It sucks. Both situations suck. But disarming yourself isn't the solution.

Be armed. Be reasonable, and prefer to de-escalate. But also be willing to fight.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 6 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Yes. Cops have always used gun bans as an excuse to kill more black people, regardless whether or not they are armed.

Yes. They are trying to use school shootings to ignite a civil war. It's in their manifestos they leave behind. They say so on their forums. The same talking heads who formented the insurrection are same ones who encourage incels to commit public massacres, then deny all culpability immediately after. They even claim the shootings never happened.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Yes. They are trying to use school shootings to ignite a civil war. It’s in their manifestos they leave behind. They say so on their forums. The same talking heads who formented the insurrection are same ones who encourage incels to commit public massacres, then deny all culpability immediately after. They even claim the shootings never happened.

You think this is a push, from the NRA amongst others, to get people to... ban specific firearms? How exactly does banning semi-auto firearms prevent your Totally-Going-To-Work-Later uprising?

[Because congratulations, your efforts to keep your firearms only cost the lives of 4,357 children (ages 1-19 years old) in the U.S. in 2020.

By comparison, motor-vehicle deaths accounted for 4,112 deaths in that age range.](https://www.snopes.com/news/2023/03/29/guns-leading-deaths-children-us/)

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

When did I ever say that this is a push from the NRA to get the USA to ban specific firearms?

I said that public massacres are being used by neo-Nazis to attempt to ignite a civil war, where they hope to rule over the ashes. I definitely did not suggest that gun bans would prevent these kinds of uprisings. Quite the opposite.

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 2 points 7 months ago

It's not just firearms here, although firearms do admittedly give some fucked up people a voice.

It's the cultural tendency to fuck people up that is the larger issue.

[-] bastion@feddit.nl 5 points 7 months ago

So, your argument is "just submit and it'll be fine"?

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 5 points 7 months ago

Where did I say that?

And none of these We Need Our Guns For Defense! comments are address that the main cause of death of your children is firearms. How many children have to die to prevent this theoretical tyrannical takeover? Where were all you guys with your guns when a coup was attempted?

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Standing clear of it, waiting for the government to do its job. Which they did, admirably.

[-] TSG_Asmodeus@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

So we're agreed, firearms aren't necessary.

[-] Olhonestjim@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago* (last edited 7 months ago)

Dude, if you're going to try and put words in my mouth, give it half a thought first. That's twice you've demonstrated poor reading comprehension.

Armed citizens are the last necessary defense of the nation. We still had a semi-functioning government, and we had to give it the chance to prove itself still viable. Had it failed, things would have gone very differently.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

If theyre necessary how do countries without them manage?

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] capem@startrek.website 2 points 7 months ago

He's just gonna be a punk to the gangbangers like in El Salvador before the crackdown.

[-] blazera@lemmy.world 9 points 7 months ago

Im just always flabbergasted when ever someone thinks theyre keeping the government in line with their civilian arms. Like they suddenly dont know what kinda firepower the US government has.

[-] EldritchFeminity 13 points 7 months ago

In all fairness, the idea behind an armed resistance to a tyrannical government is not to win, but to make the effort of stamping out resistance so costly that it bleeds them dry. Death by a thousand paper cuts style.

Not that any of the Rambo wanna-be's are thinking of that, of course.

[-] Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world 11 points 7 months ago
[-] bastion@feddit.nl 3 points 7 months ago
[-] CaptSneeze@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

It’s always obvious when someone has watched every Rambo movie, but has never been within 10 miles of a military base. Good luck to them…

load more comments (4 replies)
[-] capem@startrek.website 3 points 7 months ago

I hope you can fight!

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
409 points (100.0% liked)

News

23387 readers
1885 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS