(Greg Brophy’s head just metaphorically exploded – Promoted by Colorado Pols)
I’m going to seriously piss off the ammosexuals today.
Gunnies keep asking me what law would prevent San Bernardino, or would have prevented the Planned Parenthood attack. It’s like a dare. Well okay. I’ve given some thought to what law might really make a difference to stop mass shootings like Columbine, Aurora, San Bernardino, Planned Parenthood. What can we really do?
I respect the rights of American civilians to own guns for hunting and defense. Period. The Supreme Court has upheld those gun rights. The Heller decision says guns in “common use” are legal. So let’s change what’s in “common use.”
Today I am calling for a ban on the sale of autoloading firearms in the United States. I want a ban on autoloading guns, and an orderly phase-out of their legal possession. I would allow a rimfire exception, and I would allow double-action revolvers. That’s it. Keep your bolt actions, lever actions, pump actions, and break actions.
Killing machines off the streets.
Mass shootings even as crime rates have fallen in recent years mean it’s time for change. The simple fact is that automatic weapons put too much killing power into one hand. In real defense situations, shot placement is what matters, not spraying bullets.
America doesn’t need high-cap nines. We don’t need 5.56mm tumbling rounds to stay safe.
As a gun owner and proud American, I am calling for this to protect my rights and my safety. The “good guy with the gun” can’t stop these horrific mass shootings. We have to do something to reduce the harm potential from modern military weapons used against civilians.
Do you support a ban on autoloading firearms in the United States? Because I am ready to.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Who Will Win the Republican Vacancy Appointment in CO-04?
BY: NOV GOP meltdown
IN: It’s Official: Colorado Republicans Need A New Lawyer
BY: spaceman2021
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: davebarnes
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Get More Smarter on Thursday (March 28)
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: 2Jung2Die
IN: Yes, Please: Guns Out Of The State Capitol
BY: MichaelBowman
IN: Get More Smarter on Thursday (March 28)
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Thursday Open Thread
BY: Lauren Boebert is a Worthless POS
IN: Thursday Open Thread
Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!
But, what if you're facing a whole field of watermelons and not just a few bad ones?
Silly city liberal, all watermelons go bad eventually !!
What difference would one Glock have made? All the difference in the world. That's what you want to ban. You want people to be defenseless.
A handgun would have stopped two people with automatic weapons and body armor? Too bad real life isn't the same thing as a "Lethal Weapon" sequel.
Shoot them in the leg. After they fall shoot them in the head. A brain and a Glock with two bullets takes down automatic weapons and Body Armor. If he is wearing body armor and leg armor, then a good guy without a gun can stop him!
Wahoo! Jack Reacher shows up.
Tell you what, estimate the odds of you being able to do this under live fire pressure and with your current level of training. Then, estimate the odds of how well the people you hang out with would do at the same task. Finally, estimate the odds of Joe Blow being able to perform this task.
If you are honest with yourself and not just fantasizing while stroking your Glock, you'll have to admit that these probabilities are pretty low.
Consider the same probabilities for a trained and practiced police officer, still pretty low. Although probably 10 to 100 times more likely than you being able to perform these tasks. At that, this hypothetical police officer would be acting alone, not with 50 to 100 other officers laying down a curtain of lead.
On the whole, your fantasy does not seem to be an effective response to these sorts of situations.
I'm curious…how can you gunsuckers ever fulfill your One Good Guy With a Gun fantasies, when you're paralyzed with fear over losing them?
If we would all restrict our fantasies to the completely unobtainable and unrealistic hot chick or stud in the latest movie/chat line or internet clip the world would be a better place!
The Myth of the Good Guy With the Gun
Sorry, Rambo, like so much else from the right, your "one Glock" making a difference is a fantasy.
No Way!
Like any good Ammo-American, Moddy would have capped the first Muzlim terrorist, and said, "Send my regards to Allah!"; then did a totally awesome combat roll under the conference table, and then jumped up and shot the other one right between the eyes, while he growled, "Here's your Religion of Peace…" then he would have walked away while the whole room went up in a huge kaplosion, without ever even looking back, and Sarah Palin (back from when she was kinda hot, you know?) would have run up to him and kissed him, then she'd give him the extra – Freedom Medal of 'Murica, and say, "Now it's time to take out the trash in the White House, big fella" .
Fade Out.
Roll Credits.
Hasta la vista, baby!
Or is that too bilingual for your average ammosexual to handle? The line was actually made famous by that notorious RINO ex-governor of California.
Yeah, they would have shot the guy with the Glock and used it to kill more people.
"One Glock"??? You dumb bunny, I suppose it escaped your attention as to how much fire power was finally brought to bear in order to stop that one assault-weapon-and-body-armor armed husband and wife team?
"One Glock" — you sorry ignoramus, could you possibly be any more stupid???
Never underestimate what can possibly come of a right wing nut stroking his Glock.
Oh, my bad, I thought he said "Glock" …
… never mind!
I propose a new law. Before you can get a gun license you have to prove that you will be able to stop a bad guy with a gun before they can kill anyone and without hurting anyone. First you would have to pass the dark movie theatere test. Everybody in the theater would be panicked. Many would be running around in the dark Other good guys with guns would be trying to stop the bad guy with a gun. If someone besides the bad guy gets injured you don't get a gun license. Before getting your gun license you would also have to pass the school test, with multiple bad guys and gun toting teachers who are qualified to protect their students because they took a two week course about how to use a gun. Once again if someone gets hurt you don't get your gun license.
If you take the NRA's class for a concealed carry permit, part of the training involves "shoot, don't shoot” simulations. I know this because my wife took the class. I'd never allow a firearm in the house because she has a mental illness, but she took the class at my suggestion because she was terrified of guns. Knowing how to handle one safely alleviated her fear.
Don't care! The class for a concealed carry permit allows you to have a gun. It does not make you a pro that can shoot better than Annie Oakley. If you don't know who she is Google it.
I know exactly who she is, I got her birthday. And don't be insulting. Your point gets lost in the sarcasm.
There are no words. This blog post proves every freedom lover's worst fears about the left's gun control agenda. You DO support gun confiscation.
From my cold dead fingers!
More "cold dead fingers," . . .
. . . something we'll undoubtedly see more of.
How many more will be finally be enough for you?
Clutching your pearls and looking for a fainting couch on which to fall again?
Oh, keep your panties on, Princess. No one is taking your guns, and they never will. If dead elementary school children didn't make you gunsuckers care about needless deaths, nothing will. So, relax.
Just more typical rightie victimhood blathering and par-for-the-course paranoia from our resident drama queen.
Guy's a jumbo-sized puss.
The SCOTUS supports restrictions on dangerous and unusual weapons regardless of whether they are in common use or not:
"Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v.Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , 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.26
" We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.” See 4 Blackstone 148–149 (1769); 3 B. Wilson, Works of the Honourable James Wilson 79 (1804); J. Dunlap, The New-York Justice 8 (1815); C. Humphreys, A Compendium of the Common Law in Force in Kentucky 482 (1822); 1 W. Russell, A Treatise on Crimes and Indictable Misdemeanors 271–272 (1831); H. Stephen, Summary of the Criminal Law 48 (1840); E. Lewis, An Abridgment of the Criminal Law of the United States 64 (1847); F. Wharton, A Treatise on the Criminal Law of the United States 726 (1852). See also State v. Langford, 10 N. C. 381, 383–384 (1824); O’Neill v. State, 16Ala. 65, 67 (1849); English v. State, 35Tex. 473, 476 (1871); State v. Lanier, 71 N. C. 288, 289 (1874)."
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
I'm sure that those who embrace the cold dead fingers meme also sometimes fantasize about their last stand. Where would a martyrology be without those pleasuring themselves with thoughts of dying for the cause? Just think of the ecstasy of picturing yourself mowing down those county sheriffs tasked with the duty of taking away those firearms they advocated your right to acquire just years earlier.
As for the question of the difference a Glock would have made, we have the answer, again, in your own rhetoric. Guns don't kill people, people kill people. So by this, both logically and practically (see the comments about body armor) a Glock by itself would have made no difference at all.
Perhaps a person with a Glock and training could have made a difference. But the training part of this argument is despised by those advocating arming everyone.
The better question is: What difference would it have made if the terrorists had only bolt action rifles and six-shooters available to them?
I'm sure that those who embrace the cold dead fingers meme also sometimes fantasize about their last stand.
Too many John Wayne movies when they were young?
"cold dead fingers"…….. One of the better scenes in an otherwise non-memorable movie; the mid-1980s original "Red Dawn" starring the late Patrick Swayzee; showed a "patriot's" pickup with a "cold dead fingers" bumper sticker.
The guy is laying in the street dead next to his pickup. An untouched Cuban soldier bends over and pries the handgun out of his dead fingers.
That, and "The Lives of the Saints". Lots of inspiring gore in there. Another input could be Jimmy Cagney. Seems like the attitude, machines and villains (da coppers) are the same.
The "from my cold dead fingers" boast is apparently a claim that you would rather be killed than give up a weapon.
So…let's assume that there is a legislative ban on a certain class of weapons, and that the Supreme Court upholds the legislation.
Are you saying you would disobey that law and attempt to kill a police officer who attempted to enforce it? Or does your disobedience of the law come at an earlier point, say, by shooting up the legislature while they vote on such a bill? Or maybe the Supreme Court?
Please, let us know.
Actually, yes. I do support gun confiscation. As many as possible, as soon as possible. Our country would be vastly better off afterwards. That's the result you usually can expect when people don't have to fear being gunned down in churches, elementary schools, middle schools, high schools, bars, movie theaters, restaurants, county office buildings, Army base barracks, community colleges, public parks . . .
A significantly less armed America will be a safer America, a civilized America, a humane America, a decent America.
Confiscate the guns.
Great, modster! Surely you must finally be disgusted enough to go away and stay away for realsies this time. Or are you just getting our hopes up to dash them once again?
If there are no words…why are you still talking(typing)?
STFU and GTH.
Whenever I hear the "but if they had guns!" argument, I wonder if the people making those arguments are armed at the moment they make them…
Hopefully not. In 2011, over 14,000 people were accidentally shot and wounded by all the Barney Fife's in the US, in addition to nearly 600 that were killed.
https://www.quora.com/How-many-people-accidentally-shoot-themselves-a-friend-or-loved-one-in-the-US-every-year
To quote one of the ammosexual community's greatest thinkers, Archie Bunker (circa 1970) discussing gun control with his daughter, "Would you rather they was pushed out of open windows?"
What a great show that was — Valuable lessons in life taught every week.
Intelligent humor that flies right over the heads of poor suckers like Modster.
Those were the days!
My other favorite from Archie Bunker was when he was invited to do a TV news program rebuttal on airline hijacking editorial. His solution: have the flight attendants ("stewardesses" in 1970's lingo) pass out handguns to all adult passengers upon boarding and collect the weapons when they leave.
Moddy or Andrew Carnegie, care to take up the affirmative position on that resolution for debate?
"Arm the passengers." And, Meathead was speechless as Archie lit his cigar
And I wonder whether or not there were people carrying at places like the Aurora theater that day who realized they weren't great shots and were more likely to hit an innocent and draw the murderer's attention to themselves than to take down a guy in full body armour with their little hand gun and limited skill and experience. Or were just too scared at the time to think about it at all.
The ammosexuals carry on about gun free zones but is a movie theater one? If so why have I never gone through a metal detector or had my purse searched at the movies. What's stopping me from bringing a gun to the movies if I want to, with or without a concealed carry permit? So how do we know there wasn't a good guy or gal or two with a gun present?
In all likelihood if a bunch of amateurs with hand guns had started blasting away in Aurora (dark, crowded) or San Bernardino more, not fewer, people would have been killed and wounded. Isn't that why cops, SWAT teams, who one assumes are better trained with their weapons than your average gun carrier, don't just charge in to such situations guns blazing? Because it would probably get the more people killed?
I would propose outlawing concealed carry.
Allow only open carry and watch people's attitudes shift towards banning guns.
Nah, half the problem is that the gunsuckers insist on swaggering around, pretending they're protecting the population by packing heat at their local Chili's. I'd rather they all had to get concealed carry permits. I don't care if they're packing, I just with they'd stop acting like they're doing anyone but themselves any favors.
Joe Arpaio just spoke in AZ and asked everyone to pack and start shooting if anything happens. He said there are 250K people that can arm themselves
Ol' Gunsmoke Joe's advice wouldn't be welcome at any NRA gathering. The NRA might be crazy, but they aren't stupid. Their conventions are a gun-free zone because, you know, there's always some paranoid idiot that fancies himself to be Bruce Willis in the crowd, and in their case, they know it might be a pretty significant number.
The trouble with only allowing open carry is that it tends to be for whites only. Don't try it if you aren't. Especially in allegedly open carry Texas where an experiment showed cops practically high fiving a white guy carrying an assault style weapon but immediately stopping, questioning and cuffing a black guy doing the same thing. An interesting video that made the rounds for a while. Black guy was lucky he didn't get shot dead in the name of research.
Any bill that makes it harder for any individual to buy, possess, or use a firearm is a good bill. It's that simple.
Maybe they should outright ban all firearms. That would surely solve the problem.
All law abiding terrorists and criminals would be deterred.
Didn't these wonderful people also have pipe bombs? Aren't they already illegal?
I get it we should change the country's gun laws to align with the gun laws of California because their tough guns laws stopped something like this. Oops.
Colorado Pols is not serious. Maybe we should be more careful about granting visas to people from radicalized parts of the world. That way Jihadi Jane would still be in Pakistan.
Oh shut up AC. We have Negev to have this discussion with. Unlike you he has an apparently respectable IQ and the ability to do more than spew talking points and post stupid cartoons. Your ridiculous input is really not needed.
Not one of the gunzos bleating about "mental health" has offered any ideas about how to keep guns out of the hands of people with a serious mental illness. I don't know how many people here know that to be considered ineligible to purchase a firearm a mentally ill person must have been placed in a mental health facility by court order. Someone must have petitioned a court to declare the ill party a danger to themselves or others, Then there will be a public record of that hearing. Just having an illness, seeing doctors for it, and/or being medicated for it will not get a person on the prohibited list; no matter how serious a condition it might be.
Nor, by the way, will checking oneself into a hospital. Someone else has to have petitioned a judge to have the person admitted to ahospital.
Heck they don't even want people on terrorist watch and no fly lists to be deprived of the right to buy weapons. They take a break from Muslim bashing when it comes to protecting the rights of every flagged potential terrorist, including Muslims, who in this scenario must not be stopped from exercising their 2nd Amedment rights to buy all the weapons they want. Not to be confused with those dangerous unarmed five year olds from whom we all must be protected, of course.
You're right,cook..The statutes as written would not have prohibited any mentally ill mass shooter in recent years from owning a firearm or bomb-making materials.
There should still be a way for the community to flag would-be gun purchasers – family members, associates, counselors, social workers should be able to collectively warn the public that a specific individual should not be armed. The only means we have for this in Colorado is if an individual has a domestic violence warrant outstanding…and RMGO , etc, really hate that provision, and tried like hell to block it.
The correlation should be that there is help available for these individuals, safe and affordable housing, hospitalization if needed, medication, therapy, support groups. None of those things are currently true.
As a society, we isolate and neglect these folks, and would rather they be able to buy AK47s than get publicly funded mental health care.
I've decided to get out of the way of political suicide.