Democrats sponsoring magazine ban repeal bill

(This is a user-authored diary. To write your own, select "New Diary" from the menu to the right and spin away! – promoted by Colorado Pols) 

Don't look now, my Bloomberg-loving friends on the left, but some of your fellow Democrats are waving the white flag on gun control. The Denver Post's Lynn Bartels reports:

Four Democrats have signed into a Senate bill that repeals a ban on large-capacity ammunition magazines, one of the most controversial measures of the 2013 legislative session.

Senate Democrats co-sponsoring the bill are Kerry Donovan of Vail, Cheri Jahn of Wheat Ridge and Leroy Garcia. In the House, Democrat Ed Vigil of Fort Garland is a co-sponsor. Vigil was vocal in his opposition of his party’s gun-control measures.

What will Speaker Dickey Lee Hullinghorst do? If she sends it to the "kill committee" there will be outrage. If she allows the bill a fair hearing, it will pass the Democrat controlled House with bipartisan support and Hickenlooper will make the call. Hickenlooper has already admitted mistakes in signing the magazine ban bill. I believe if it gets to his desk, he will sign it.

I know most of you don't care what I think, but I am being completely honest with the Democrats who read this blog. LET THE MAG BAN GO. It was horrible policy from the beginning. It offends gun owners more than anything else you passed in 2013. If you allow the Democrats joining with Republicans to repeal the mag ban, it will help you politically. I can't believe I'm admitting that, but in this case I care more about my constitutional rights.

This is the most honest advice I will ever give the Democrats, so I hope you take it!

59 Community Comments, Facebook Comments

  1. Andrew Carnegie says:

    Mod:

    Don't worry the Dems will not take your sound advice.

    They are still run by the left wing wack job crowd.

    It is not about being practical with the far left.

    It is about purity of political philosophy.

    • Moderatus says:

      I hear you, AC, but there are these four. We owe it to ourselves to give the Democrats the chance to do the right thing.

      I'm encouraged that there are at least a few Democrats who have read the Constitution. Thank you to Senators Donovan Jahn and Garcia, and Rep. Vigil.

      • FrankUnderwood says:

        Why don't you write them checks for their next campaigns…..

      • Wong21fr says:

        I've read the Constitution and nowhere does it say that individuals should have unfettered access to weapons.  Supreme Court interpretations generally draw the line at military weapons that are not commonly accessible- which is anything above a service rifle.  Perhaps you might make that point to your little RMGO attack dogs?

        The citizen militia, commonly referred to as discardable bags of meat, was always envisioned as a means of defense from tyranny, whether foreign or domestic, by getting thousands of idiots to soak up enemy fire so that the trained army avoided damage.

      • BlueCat says:

        You obviously haven't nor are you aware of the long history of various degrees of control that have always been with us and that have not been over-turned by the Supremes. If the right were truly absolute you could take a grenade launcher to the Superbowl or own your own nuclear weapon. There already are limits of long standing. That ship has sailed. It's a silly discussion.

        So…. reasonable people must agree that the question isn't and never has been whether or not the right to bear arms can be subject to any limits. It already is. Just like all rights are. The only question worth discussing is what kind and degree of limits are acceptable under our constitution, a subject on which reasonable people who know what the constitution says can disagree. Ultimately that will be resolved, in various instances, by the courts whose job it is to judge what is and is not in conflict with the constitution, not by poorly informed trolls who don't know WTF they're talking about. 

        Get back to me when the Supremes declare you have an absolute right to bear any kind of arms anywhere under any circumstances.  I won't be holding my breath waiting for you to show up on my doorstep with an armed missile launcher. Until then please recognize that the right to bear arms is no more absolute than any other right or, for that matter, anything else in the material world where ideals and absolutes are signposts, not material actualities.

         

      • spaceman65 says:

        "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited."  DC v. Heller.  I'd like to keep this reasonable limitation.  Kinda like background checks: "nothing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms."  DC v. Heller.  BTW, that was Justice Scalia's words, you know, that liberal activist.

         

        .  

  2. mamajama55 says:

    Mods,

    Congratulations on your first  post.  Senator Garcia never voted for the mag limits law. He's always been a "moderate" on gun issues. I hate to admit it myself, but I have come to think that the mag limit is not very good law. Even though the fight over it recalled a great Senator and replaced her with a tea party cretin.

    The problem it attempts to address, that of insane mass murderers having free access to large-capacity magazines, is a systemic problem, best addressed by funding mental health centers and programs, including walk-in clinics, and quick, on-the-spot determination if someone is dangerous, and then taking action, including locking them up or taking away their guns if they are in fact dangerous.

    I don't love Bloomberg, and the Democratic legislators are not "waving the white flag". When you stereotype people who disagree with you in this way, it cuts the ground from under your argument.

    So what do you think of my proposal that firearms safety programs be mandatory in all schools? Are you for it or agin it? I'm proposing to those same Democratic legislators, and my own Republican ones, that they come up with some bills to move that idea forward. I think that it's a way that we can actually save some kid's lives, and find a rational way to deal with threats to public health and safety, as we routinely do with drugs, tobacco, alcohol, safety belts, etc.

    • Negev says:

      I think thats a great idea Mama! I remember I had to take a hunter safety course in middle school in the early 80's and the safety precautions of that class remain with me to this day. 

      I do believe if the magazine ban is repealed you will hear very little more from the gun nuts. 

      • bullshit! says:

        Oh please. Dudley Brown is a lunatic. Brown will not stop until you can buy an AR-15 in every corner store with no background checks whatsoever, in attractive colors the kids will love.

        One cannot negotiate with a guy who tell his supporters to hunt Democrats (endquote). And the last thing we should do is try to appease him.

        • Negev says:

          I did not realize Dudley Brown was the leader of the gun nuts…. but it would be safe to say that Bloomberg will not stop until every gun is removed from the populace with the exception of his security detail. I believe these are both a given. 

          But you can already buy an AR-15 on nearly any corner without a background check.  

          • BlueCat says:

            Any corner is a bit over the top. 

            • Negev says:

              Nearly any corner is what I said, and further down you insinuate that I mean that as black market or illegal in purchase. I am certain you are aware of 80% receivers and realize that a vast majority of the states require no background check for private sales. You can have an AR lower delivered to your house with a drill bit and fixture and be shooting in less than an hour completely legally, with no background check (and on sale!):

              http://www.ar-parts.net/ar-15/ar-15-80-lower-jig-2-pack/

              The troubling part of this whole "reasonable restriction" thing is that your efforts are increasing this type of market. You support a law requiring background checks on private sales, and those against it go out and buy these things, BY THE DOZEN, which have absolutely NO SERIAL NUMBERS WHATSOEVER, and cost less than a new firearm. At least you could trace a serialized firearm to the last papered owner. Now the market is way, way more volitile with no way of knowing where these firearms come from – or where they go.

              And it is completely legal.

              When it comes to magazines its even worse – there are hundreds of millions of magazines legally in this country, and no way whatsoever to determine a chain of possession, date of manufacture or time of aquisition. Thinking a mass killer will pause to consider the reprocussions of a magazine capacity violation in relation to the charge of mass murder just does not sound "reasonable" to me. 

              Law enforcement cannot stop drugs that are produced halfway around the world from proliferating our streets and yet you can somehow believe they can enforce plastic boxes made by the millions right here in our state?

              C'mon man. I'm all for stopping the carnage. This ain't the way to do it. 

               

               

               

               

              • BlueCat says:

                You said any (or almost any) corner. No insinuation of anything is required to judge that to be an exaggeration. Perhaps you should have said what you meant more clearly. 

                • Negev says:

                  Agreed. Please accept my apology. Here is what I am saying: If I want an AR15 I can have one delivered to my door and it will not contain serial numbers nor require a background check and be completely legal. Full diclosure it will take a hand drill and a vice to make it work, but the process is very, very simple:

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ccO1Day60sA

                  So really, getting to any, near any, or some corner is an exaggeration. You don't have to go that far. 

                  Dont think your capable? Heck just go to a build party:

                  https://www.facebook.com/GunOwnersOfColorado/posts/680238402021288

                  Again – I am with you on stopping the killing. Few are not. We disagree on the methods. Restriction leads to innovation. We have seen it with alcohol, drugs,and guns. The methods CO has adopted are old laws, enacted in many states prior to us, even on a national level, and have produced insignificant results.

                   

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  • BlueCat says:

                    Thank you and I believe that you personally are concerned with the killing but I don't believe that many of your fellow travelers in the gun rights community are. I believe they would be opposed to any gun control legislation even with proof of efficacy.

                    I also believe that, despite what you present, we don't have evidence that a universal background check system incorporating measures to deal with mental health issues and how concerns of mental health professionals are incorporated into the system would yield no improvement or negative results. 

                    That said, there is clearly more to the problem of escalating gun violence than the availability of guns. Far more people are killed in every day shootings that get little or no press than in splashy mass killings by madmen. Clearly, deeply ingrained cultural issues are at work and no gun control measures will be a panacea. To me, that doesn't mean that we should entirely give up on finding some combination of measures that could have a mitigating effect.

                    Also, I believe that those, like AC and moderatus, who base their arguments on silly claims about absolute rights and accuse all those who propose measures including some limitations of ignorance of the constitution contribute nothing to any useful discussion and should be ignored by reasonable people.

                    • Negev says:

                      I believe you may be correct about my "fellow travelers in the gun rights community" (that is seriously the most gracious definition I have yet to come across, thank you!) in that they would be opposed to any legislation, even with proof of efficacy. I hope you can understand the frustration some would feel when legislation shows absolute proof of inefficacy is deemed "common sense" and your labled a lunatic fringe when you disagree.

                      And I would wholeheartedly agree with you that there is no evidence that a universal background check incorporating mental health issues would yield no improvements. However, this type of background check is not what occurs. Its not even on the table. What is curious is that we see these killers simply walking into stores and buying guns – passing background checks, and continuing on to murder at will, and the solution is more background checks? Thats not common sense, is it?

                      And again, I believe we agree, we should never, ever give up on finding a solution that could have a mitigating effect. I think if you look historically at the spree killer phenom as a whole, you will find the extremely rare occasion that a shooter gets tackled (Gifford) on one side and on the other a shooter goes through the spree unscathed (Aurora) and in the middle you find a wide preponderance of said shooter taking there own life when confronted or being shot by armed resistance. 

                      This is not my personal preference, nor do I believe any of you would agree, but the most probable manner of stopping a spree killer is to drop them in their tracks, preferably before they get too deep into a death toll. The most effective way to do so is to shoot them. I don't like it, would never want to do it, and pray it never happens, but am able to accept the fact that its just the way it is, and its the most common denominator in this equation. 

                      Thank you again for the discussion. 

                       

                    • BlueCat says:

                      No reply boxes left so I had to use mine. I wanted to thank you in return. I agree that we need to bring the mental health issue into background checks but I don't believe the majority of the gun rights crowd would change their stance even if legislation included a way of addressing it. What makes so many of us view these people as nuts is their absolutist stance, hysteria over any baby step legislation being an existential threat and hateful attacks on anyone who  doesn't agree with their mistaken absolutist stance.

                      There are also extremists on the pro-gun control side who don't want to here any evidence against a particular solution they favor and who are unfairly insulting to anyone who doesn't agree 100% with them.

                      It's too bad that few, especially among our elected pols, seem to be capable of a discussion like this. If they were, maybe we could actually get somewhere finding a way out of the sad violent mess we find ourselves in in today's US.  

      • Denver Yankee says:

        "I do believe if the magazine ban is repealed you will hear very little more from the gun nuts."

        Anyone like to buy a nice bridge?

        • Diogenesdemar says:

          I already have all the bridges I need, thank you. But, I did want to point out that anyone who thinks Fudley would stop after passage of any amount of gun legislation is simply delusional. But then, I think that anyone who believes that Fudley is just about arming nutters to the teeth suffers from reality denial. The reality is that Fudnutz has been, and remains, an extremist GOP nutter — his RMGO nutter minions are merely useful pawns, an easily motivated, fearful, willing-to-intimidate, zombie army. Fudley's agenda neither begins, nor ends, with gunz.

      • mamajama55 says:

        Hi Negev,

        I'm glad you like the idea of common-sense firearm safety education.

        I agree with BS that public education on firearm safety isn't going to stop nor slow down RMGO or Dudley Brown.Because RMGO is Brown's very lucrative business, and scaring gun enthusiasts that someone will take away their firearms is his business model.

        My motivation, on the other hand, and I would hope the motivation of legislators of both parties and educators, would be to lessen the number of gun accidents killing or maiming children in Colorado.  The numbers are horrific – 10,000 gun accidents nationwide, 3,000 deaths of kids shot before their 18th birthday. We know that this type of education has been successful in decreasing tobacco and drug use, and increased safety belt use among teens.

        I notice Moderatus hasn't responded to my question – possibly because he knows that firearms safety education in public schools is such a reasonable thing to do that he can't argue against it.

      • Diogenesdemar says:

        It is a great idea, but it should have fair and equal application, don't you think Negev?  If we're going to have any system of mandatory gun-safety education, then by all means let's have some small requirement that this training be mandatory prior to any kind of public (concealed or open) firearms carry . . . 

        Seems only reasonable, right?!?

        • Negev says:

          Sure. Why not make them one in the same. Lets say, right after transgender acceptance class and 3rd grade sex ed, we have a gun safety class that everyone is required to take, and upon completion they are qualified to carry. Sounds totally reasonable to me….

          Mama you have a great point. While everyone is pissing and moaning over how many shots or how a mass killer gets a gun, they account for a very small portion of gun deaths. The fact that little focus is spent on suicide and safety solidifies my opinion that the death count is not the focus.

           

           

          • mamajama55 says:

            You lost me with bringing in "transgender acceptance class" . You're purposely loading the language to conflate learning some safety practices around a deadly danger (guns), with learning to tolerate differences and be informed on how ones own body works.

            Age appropriate sex ed entails concepts such as "private parts", ability to set limits and know what appropriate touch is, and very basic biology (no babies from sharing an ice cream cone). Older kids get more detailed info as is appropriate.  Very young trans kids don't require anyone to "take a class" to deal with them – kids learn to use the preferred gender pronoun, mostly. TG kids usually get to use the unisex bathrooms to avoid problems.

            Dr. Chaps freakouts notwithstanding.

            • Negev says:

              Mama I was trying to illustrate how education is expected for items much less deadly than guns, and is legislated into practice, while gun education is ignored and instead banished from view. My intent was to support your education suggestion. My bet is a percentage of people could be saved from gun death by merely a 2 minute video on how a bullet can still be in the chamber when your remove the magazine. The fact that this is not available nor required while my above mentioned classes are again supports my assumption that this legislation is not about saving lives. Guns have taken the place of smoking, with the full intent of eradication of a health risk.  

        • mamajama55 says:

          Dio,

          Concealed carry permits already require training prior to issue of the permit. I don't know about open carry, as the only place I've carried a gun in public was at a shooting range. Someone who has gone through the CC process can speak to how rigorous that training is.

          Vicki Marble, the Windsor Whackjob, introduced a  bill to no longer require the training prior to issue of concealed carry permits. Why? Because…freedumb?

          What I'm proposing would not necessarily increase the number of live weapons in schools – age-appropriate training would entail simple instructions like"Don't pick up a gun if you see one, Don't assume it's a toy, Don't ever point it at anyone."

          That could easily be accomplished without using live ammo. In fact, just videos or school assemblies with speakers would get the message across.

          What I see is that, since the  debate over "gun rights" has become so politically loaded, educators have left a vacuum of basic information kids need to stay safe.

          ROTC does a good job of training with wooden fake guns. Then as kids get older, and of course with parent permission, they can opt in for the type of "Eddie Eagle" training the NRA does, like check the chamber for a round, keep the safety on when not shooting, target practice at a shooting range with ear protection, etc.

          Even ignorant, neglectful, gunhead parents still love their kids. Firearms safety education would give the kids a better chance of living to become adults, and incidentally take a whole lotta drama out of gun politics.

  3. bullshit! says:

    I have listened to the testimony of Jane Dougherty, the sister of Newtown victim Mary Sherlach. I've also studied what happened in Tucson when Gabrielle Giffords was shot. In both cases, the need to reload gave would be victims a chance to escape. Lives were saved.

    In Aurora, the shooter used a huge drum. Most of the bullets in that drum were successfully fired before it jammed.

    Gun lovers can say whatever they want. We don't need guns designed to spray 30+ bullets into a crowd in society. We just don't.

    Stand strong, Democrats, and Gov. Hickenlooper if necessary. Don't repeal the mag limit.

    Congrats on your first diary, Modster.

    • BlueCat says:

      Agree, Also, people like the Aurora shooter are not the type who would easily know where to make black market illegal purchases despite Negev's belief that anyone can do so on "any" corner. In my Littleton residential neighborhood, I'm surrounded by corners where that would not be the case and people, including possibly unbalanced students, who would have no idea where to get a black market gun. 

      Bloomberg may want to see all private gun ownership disappear but that has little to do with what most proponents of modest gun control want and so what? Bloomberg isn't going get anywhere in accomplishing that goal. Here in Colordao a typical pro-sensible gun control Dem is very likely to also be a gun owner. That's true of my household including a gun owning combat vet who is in favor of sensible limits and couldn't care less about Bloomberg. He has pretty much no influence on Colorado Dems who aren't going to be spending money he sends them on trying to take away everyone's guns. They'll spend it on promoting the kind of measures they favor which are decidely non-draconian.

      But, most important, is a little inconvenience to gun purchasers really such a big deal compared to the jobs and economic issues lying GOTP pols claim are their priority issues?  They clearly aren't or those would be be the subjects of the first legislation proposed by newly elected Rs. It never is.

      • Negev says:

        The Aurora shooter did not have to find a black market firearm. He walked into the store and got one. Just like the Vtec student, and 95% of other mass shooters. The columbine shooters did thier evil deeds with a nationwide 10 round magazine ban, while high capacity magazines account for .13% of all gun deaths (thats a study we can thank Mr. Bloomberg for publishing)

         

         

         

        • BlueCat says:

          Yes, that's my point. He didn't need to to know anything about how to acquire his weaponry in any nefarious way. He just had to walk into a store. Stricter background checks may not have helped in this specific case without also addressing how mental health professionals should be required to handle reporting specific threats of violence and how that would be integrated into the system. A thorny issue to be sure. But any individual case is anecdotal.

          No safeguards will stop all possible mass killings and mass killings do account for a very small percentage of victims of gun violence. Safeguards that would make it more difficult for the mentally unstable to just walk into a store to buy whatever they want or that would prevent an angry drunk under a restraining order or with a record of domestic abuse from so easily and quickly purchasing a gun hardly seem like something for which there are rational reasons for top priority tooth and nail opposition.

          And, once again, every time Republican majorities get elected they demonstrate that their alleged concern for making the economy work better for average Americans is pure bull, that improving the economy for the majority is very far down their list of priorities. They do so by focusing first and often almost exclusively on issues such as opposing any gun control measures, equal marriage rights, equal rights to purchase goods and services, the rights of women to make choices about their health, access to family planning, science based education, etc.

          I know that you are pretty much a one issue person and that gun rights are penultimate for you but I'm not. I find the right's hysterical focus on any degree of gun control, no matter how moderate, frankly, ridiculous. I completely reject the notion that you and your fellow travelers oppose any degree of control because it makes matters worse.  I believe you all would oppose anything of the kind even with empirical evidence that it did help bring down the numbers of victims.

          It would be nice if Republicans in office cared one tenth as much about the health, educational and economic well being of the majority of their constituents as they do about waiting an extra half hour to purchase a gun or the fact that someone somewhere might be enjoying guilt and self loathing free sex without the intention of having a child. Their legislative focus makes it abundantly clear that they don't. You apparently approve of their placing this particular issue, unfettered gun rights, at the every top of their list of priorities. I don't.

          • BlueCat says:

            After reading your apology above, I do take you at your word about concern over the killing. I know you are no AC or moderatus. But I don't believe you are at all a typical example of the gun rights community. I don't believe, one way or the other, this deserves to be the single highest priority that would lead anyone to being a single issue voter or supporter. I think the company doing so puts you in is generally loathsome and beneath you.

            • Negev says:

              I hear you on this BC but I find it difficult to understand how the left can be pro choice and anti gun. Or pro gay marriage and anti gun. While I am no constitutionalist its curious that the party that OWNS the Bill of Rights can cherry pick them with a straight face. Its interesting to see one demand equality based on a passage from this document much more vague than "shall not be infringed" yet continue to advance the notion that the Second Amendment was for hunting or only meant for muskets. They are all too often able to question why I would "need" a gun and are offended when I ask them why they "need" an abortion. 

              So while it is a single issue voter mentality, the aversion to the Second Amendment says a lot more about a person than you would expect. One being they are not concerned with equal rights, as long as they are treated equally; or perhaps they demand tolorance of thier deeply held beliefs, but are not expected to tolorate yours.

              While I am not gay, nor female, I respect the rights of both and support them equally in the context of rights and make no effort or issue on what they chose to do. I expect the same. The inablity of the left to respect the rights of those they don't agree with while demanding the opposite has forced this opinion upon me. Trust me, it aint easy voting red. I really expected the left to embrace the right to bear arms, primarily to fight the tyrannical right wing! 

              • BlueCat says:

                I would only say again that certain controls and limitations of lethal weaponry have always been accepted as permissible which is, once again, why you can't  bring grenades to a Nuggets game, no matter how tempting blowing that team up might be right now. It's a public safety issue just like not being allowed to yell fire in a crowded theater is a public safety issue over-riding free speech.

                Most Dems just don't see a public safety issue where family planning and marrying one's gay partner are concerned. As with everything, the degree of freedom v public safety is one that reasonable people can debate but the idea that perfect unfettered freedom exists in relation to any of our constitutional rights is absurd on its face.

                As long as the gun rights extremists insist that the right to bear arms is absolute and cannot be regulated in any way there can be no rational discussion. The first step has to be a recognition of the fact that, as with every right that ends where another begins, limitations are acceptable. I don't hear many gun rights activists insisting that they be allowed to bring AK47s with them to the movies so even they seem to tacitly accept this reality in spite of insisting otherwise in their rhetoric. Therefore, the only useful discussion to have is what limitations do we deem acceptable in the balance between competing rights, not whether any given right is absolute. None is.

                BTW, what do you think of Marble's proposed legislation to get rid of the education requirement for a concealed carry permit? 

                • Negev says:

                  I willfully accept controls and limitations, however I think we both know that it is not against the law to yell fire in crowed theater, its falsely creating a clear and present danger and lead others into dangerouse situations thats illegal (not anymore):

                  http://civil-liberties.yoexpert.com/civil-liberties-general/is-it-legal-to-shout-%22fire%22-in-a-crowded-theater-19421.html

                  That being said, if you were to present to me a law making it illegal to enter a crowed theater and expend 100 rounds into the crowd, well, that would seem to me to be a reasonable restriction.

                  I would expect that if reasonable restriction were tested to quantify the value between freedom and public safety, we would expect the evidence would show the restriction increased public safety more than it restricts freedom, right? In the case of magazine capacity, you don't have that evidence. You in fact have overwhelming evidence of the contrary.  That in effect would be considered an overreach. Thats not an absolutionist position, thats sensible.

                  And while many would identify abortion as "family planning" (you and me both) others identify abortion as "killing babies". While this is not my personal position and I do not subscribe to this viewpoint, I can say with reasonable clarity that I would not want those who feel this way defining what reasonable restriction would be in terms of abortion. What is the saying about rich white men determining the reproductive rights of poor women of color? 

                  So when you apply that to the gun debate, it seems that the anti gun establishment is the side in charge of defining reasonable restriction. Not the best position for us pro gun "travelers", wouldn't you agree?

                  So if you support the woman screaming "keep your laws out of my womb", you should at least consider "don't tread on me" as a reasonable response to laws that are only deemed appropriate by those who make them. 

                  Now to answer your question, I think every person intending to carry a firearm should go through some sort of training. I indeed think every person gun owner or not should be informed on the operation of and use/misuse of firearms. I expect that the right is going just as far off the deep end as the left and are promoting the opposite spectrum as a volley.

                   

                   

                   

                   

                  • BlueCat says:

                    But, dear Negev, both sides of the gun debate could discuss and compromise on what seems reasonable as you and I often seem to do if the gun rights side didn't keep insisting that there's nothing to discuss because the right is absolute and any restrictions violate the constitution.

                    Those on the side of restrictions really are largely more like me. Not anti-gun but for restrictions, some of us probably for more restrictions than you'd like, but not absoutists who propose ending private gun ownership.

                    My side is open to discussion and compromise. With most on your side, there can be no discussion or compromise. You must admit you're hardly typical, much less typical than I am for my side, especially here in Colorado where plenty of Dems like their guns. 

                    • Negev says:

                      I would have then expected at least one Republican vote for any of the gun votes or at least one Democrat against it…. 

                      I think compromise is a two way street. Those for restriction offer nothing in return, so its very easy to say your side is open for discussion and compromise, yet its always what or how much of a restriction is credible, with no added value to our side. Its more of a take and take, with no give. Perhaps a repeal of the Gun Control act of 1968 for exchange for mandatory gun registration, or universal background check once a year for unfettered access to NFA items, you are compromising. Now, its magazine restriction – yes or no – or private background check – yes or no – I don't see how you can expect any other response from our side.   

                       

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Sorry, Negev. Your side is the one that offers nothing but only claims that the right to bear arms is absolute, no limitations are constitutional and anyone who thinks that any regulation is permissible is ignorant of the constitution and hates freedom. They are the ones that dismiss the very idea of any compromise.  Most of them would consider you a traitor for so much as considering  any exchange. In this case, your premise is faulty.

                    • Negev says:

                      BC there was no reply at the end of your post – it must be a conspiracy to limit my free speech (thats a joke) but I found this illustration that may show why our side lacks the desire to compromise:

                      Illustrated-Guide-To-Gun-Control

                    • BlueCat says:

                      There's just a box limit, I guess, so they don't get too tiny.

                      Your cartoon assumes the gun rights people are in possession of a whole cake… an absolute right that can't be regulated in any way. They aren't. This right has always been regulated to some degree. One more time (I know this is getting boring) if it really were absolute you could have any kind of weaponry and take it anywhere you pleased. That's what an absolute right exempt from any regulation means.  

                      So the whole cake analogy is wrong to start with.  The reality is, and this doesn't easily lend itself to cake cartoons, we're talking about something that's already subject to limits and regulations and arguing abut the degree to which expanding those limits and regulations is both useful and acceptable under our constitution. 

                      Your side rejects that. Your side insists it really is about some whole cake (absolute right not subject to any limits) in their possession (never was) and that they aren't going to give up a single crumb of this whole cake, a cake that they don't really have in the first place.

                      And, yes, since they mistakenly believe that the cake (absolute right that cannot be subject to any limits) exists and that they own it, compromise does seem ridiculous to them. As long as they cling to this false belief (which would only be true if we really could now stroll around with rocket launchers and take grenades to the mall) then this cartoon does reflect their attitude and illustrate why they are the ones who make any degree of rational discussion impossible.

                      In short, everything in this cartoon is based on an entirely false premise.

                    • BlueCat says:

                      Make that "abut' "about". And I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. But I always enjoy our discussions, Negev.

    • DenverMom says:

      Thank you.  RMGO and others state that the magazine limit is hard to enforce, because it grandfathers in people who owned those guns before.  The idea of limiting the ability to fire multiple rounds without reloading is a good idea.   Don't repeal that provision.

  4. Wong21fr says:

    That's incorrect.  Holmes had a drum magazine on the AR-15 that he had and it jammed after he had fired only a few rounds- which is the norm for drum magazines on AR-15's.  They are absolute crap for a semiautomatic rifle that is magazine fed.  What Holmes did have was a shotgun and two semi-automatic handguns.  Once his primary weapon became inoperative, he transitioned to the shotgun, fired it empty, and then transitioned to his handguns.  Carnage via multiple weapons is even more effective than a high-cap magazine as it's less likely your weapon will malfunction.

    I'm not sure if Holmes had extended magazines on his handgun or not.  If not, he caused mutliple casualties with weapons that are still legal today.

    • bullshit! says:

      No, I believe you are incorrect. Dave Hoover testified this week in House State Affairs testimony that 62 rounds were successfully fired via the 100-round drum. I saw another news report that said 45 rounds. Also, Tom Sullivan, also an Aurora family member, testified that 76 shots were fired by that weapon. I don't know why they are different, I'm inclined to trust Hoover as it's most recent. Pols reported Sullivan's count last year:

      http://coloradopols.com/diary/54281/maybe-a-good-thing-that-he-had-a-100-round-magazine

      What is your source to the contrary?

      • BlueCat says:

        I like this part:

        Just a couple of points to add, since this horrifyingly tortured logic doesn't really merit anything you'd call "analysis." Herpin was trying to make a point, not wholly inaccurate, that some of the cheaper civilian-grade high capacity drum magazines aren't very reliable. The drum magazine used by the Aurora shooter in fact did jam his assault rifle–after numerous fatal shots. But the idea that anyone would count on product defects to protect the public in an actual shooting is, of course, ludicrous beyond words. Also, we are obliged to note that in the Sandy Hook Elementary shootings, the Colorado-made Magpul high capacity magazines did not jam. – See more at: http://coloradopols.com/diary/54281/maybe-a-good-thing-that-he-had-a-100-round-magazine#sthash.xHGj4AT8.dpuf

      • Wong21fr says:

        I was going off of initial reports that stated that the AR-15 jammed fairly quickly.  Also, I seem to remember that most of the casualities that were treated were found to have been hit by shotgun pellets and handgun rounds.  So, it was conjecture on my part.  If I'm wrong, than that's my bad.  Though any eyewitness or secondhand accounts won't carry the weight that the police reports have; which I don't believe have been released yet due to the ongoing trail proceedings.

        The magazine ban is the one piece of the new laws that I could support being repealied.  I don't think that it was well thought-out and could either be amended or repealed outright.  It's the rest of the laws that are the really effective ones IMO.  Though, in the big picture, this is just the first attempt by the GOP to roll back the restrictions.  Something they'll continue to do even if it was the State House where a mass shooting took place.  The GOP's attack dogs are too dangerous for the GOP to try and dismiss.

  5. FrankUnderwood says:

    RMGO's slogan is, "It's a right, not a privilege." From there they argue that there can be no restrictions on that right. (Isn't that what sets them apart from the NRA? They hate the NRA because the NRA is a bunch of pussies willing to tolerate some trivial limitations on gun purchases.)

    But with their kooky and absolute interpretation of "the right," there would be no limit on what constitutes a firearm.  As someone posted earlier, grenade launchers would be covered. Tactical nuclear weapons anyone?

    There is nothing in the Second Amendment limiting  gun ownership to the mentally stable.  So Dudley, didn't James Holmes have a right to buy and carry whatever the hell he could get his hands on?  Or the bat shit crazy John Hinckley, who shot and almost killed your Dear Leader? Adam Lanza may have been nuts but did that take away his Second Amendment rights in the RMGO's bizzaro world?

    And then there is the age qualification. Nothing in the Second Amendment that establishes 21 or 18 or 16 or 5 as a minimum age for gun ownership. So that toddler in Walmart who accidentally shot and killed mom was simply acting within his rights?

  6. Gilpin Guy says:

    Ask yourself.  Have there been any mass murders in Colorado using high capacity magazines since the 2013 statute went into effect?

    Answer: None

    Case closed.

    • Negev says:

      With all due respect ask yourself have there been any mass murders in Colorado when there has been a nationwide ban on high capacity magazines over 10 rounds?

      Answer: Yes

      Was the death toll less?

      Answer: No. More. 

       

  7. mamajama55 says:

    The "absolutely no infringement of second amendment" crowd also does not vote for increases in funding for mental health care, nor for giving mental health professionals more leeway to lock dangerous people up.

    If you remember, James Holmes, the Virginia shooter, the Fort Hood shooter, Gabby Giffords shooter, the Sikh temple shooter, Adam Lanza – I'm getting depressed just listing these – all had significant "red flags" posted, with family members or mental health pros warning that these were volatile, violent people. Yet nothing was done to limit their access to guns. They were all still able to get high powered large magazine weapons for their chosen crimes.

    So magazine limits would not have stopped many of them – maybe the Gabby Giffords shooter. Making sure they couldn't have guns at all – and getting them involuntarily committed with no access to weapons – that would have saved some lives. Yet, you'll never see any gun enthusiast voting for funding or legal power to lock potential mass murderers up or take away their guns.

    So I find it hard to be as enthused about the magazine rounds limit as I was. It's a tool, which may prevent some casualties once a killing spree is underway, but does absolutely nothing to prevent one in the first place.

    • Negev says:

      Mama we agree on a lot of things here, and I again agree with you. My question is that why is it, that when the Dems had full control in CO, with the ability to enact literally any stop gap they wanted to prevent mentally ill people from getting guns, they did not? I mean, its pretty clear that if all of them had 1 thing in common it would be mental health. Where was the legislation when they had it for the taking? 

      • mamajama55 says:

        There actually were some good mental health bills funded when Dems held both houses. I don't feel like looking up links at the moment. Yet the problem is still vast, and mental health is still, as former State Sen Moe Keller noted in this Denver Post article, "the only disease for which we wait until stage 4 to treat".

        Before Obamacare ( which I sssume you are also against), uninsured people who were put in hospitals on mental health holds were routinely kicked out before the 72 hours was up, and then charged $200-400 per day for the privilege. No follow up care, no plan, no place to go.  Now, at least these folks have the option to get covered, although they still have to access help from a still-overburdened system to get it.

        Then, there are civil libertarian concerns which would need to be hashed out in any law giving police and mental health folks more power to involuntarily commit – there should be some right to appeal, for instance. But we're still waiting until catastrophe to treat people. There are still very few beds available, or walk in clinic appointments. 

        So in general, the mentally ill are still "out of sight, out of mind", even if they're out of their minds. To be fair, I should add that mentally ill and homeless people are much more likely to be victims than perpetrators of violence. But for the few that are violent, we should limit their access to weapons.

         

        • Negev says:

          Agreed. And I support Obamacare. I do think Jon Gruber is a douchbag, but I feel the same way about Wayne Lapierre.  I think privacy concerns would raise problems on both sides with the mental health issue.

           

           

          • BlueCat says:

            That's the problem. Privacy concerns. But the sad fact is, without anything on record there's no reason why another James Holmes couldn't pass a background check. Then there's the Sandy Hook shooter whose mother could easily pass a background check giving her disturbed son access to all her guns. And mental illness almost always figures into these mass shootings because ordinary garden variety criminals aren't interested in slaughtering school children, shoppers or movie goers en masse for  the hell of it. 

            On the other hand, garden variety criminals killing one or two people at a time for reasons that are rational in their world are responsible for most gun related deaths. The mass events just get our attention.

            I still think making it a little harder is better than making it easier along the road to getting this figured out and I don't see how it hurts any legit, law abiding gun enthusiasts. 

            • Duke Cox says:

              I still think making it a little harder is better than making it easier

              concur completely…

               I don't see how it hurts any legit, law abiding gun enthusiasts. 

              it doesn't hurt anything except their feelings…

              the poor babies.

            • mamajama55 says:

              Concur. It's the old "control what you can control, even if it doesn't fix the underlying problem" method.

              It's why high-poverty schools have dress codes and uniforms – controlling how kids dress is doable, even if it doesn't impact poverty and lack of early literacy experiences at all – the main causes of school "failures" are not impacted by banning certain items of clothing. Middle and upper class schools usually don't have dress codes, because they typically don't have to worry about gang violence.

              Similarly, legit gun enthusiasts and hobbyists have already figured out how to get the magazine size they want, whining about "second amendment infringement" all the while. Probably, potential mass murderers have figured that out, too. But by golly, we have controlled the one thing we can control.

              It's why I don't really care if the mag ban is repealed.

              • mamajama55 says:

                I should say that I don't really see any up side to repealing the mag ban, either. As others have said, it's unlikely that RMGO or other gun lobbyists will give up their big fake reason to fundraise,("Aaah! They're coming to take your guns! Send $50 now!!!") or negotiate with Dems in any meaningful way, for, say, mental health funding or strengthening the background check requirements.

                I suppose that for the four Dems promoting this, that it might inoculate them somewhat against attacks from gun hobbyists – it did certainly help Garcia win against Rivera in Pueblo. 

                 

              • Negev says:

                It's the old "control what you can control, even if it doesn't fix the underlying problem" method. 

                we have controlled the one thing we can control.

                Well I believe this is where you and I can disagree finally Mama. Controling what you can control even if it doesn't fix the underlying problem defies logic and supports the notion that its not about gun control, its about control. Labeling this method as common sense or resonable is preposterous.

                Even more so when the arbitrary act of control in reality spins the underlying issue into a frenzy and effectively produces the exact opposite result of the intended control. I would submit to you that there are 10x more high capacity magazines in the state of CO than there were before 2013, hundreds of thousands more "assault weapons", and a vast increase in undocumented and illegal gun trades based entirely on the effects of this perceived control. 

                With no change to the underlying problem. I don't see how you can be on board with that. 

                 

Leave a Reply

Comment from your Facebook account


You may comment with your Colorado Pols account above (click here to register), or via Facebook below.