CO-04 (Special Election) See Full Big Line

(R) Greg Lopez

(R) Trisha Calvarese



President (To Win Colorado) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Biden*

(R) Donald Trump



CO-01 (Denver) See Full Big Line

(D) Diana DeGette*


CO-02 (Boulder-ish) See Full Big Line

(D) Joe Neguse*


CO-03 (West & Southern CO) See Full Big Line

(D) Adam Frisch

(R) Jeff Hurd

(R) Ron Hanks




CO-04 (Northeast-ish Colorado) See Full Big Line

(R) Lauren Boebert

(R) Deborah Flora

(R) J. Sonnenberg




CO-05 (Colorado Springs) See Full Big Line

(R) Dave Williams

(R) Jeff Crank



CO-06 (Aurora) See Full Big Line

(D) Jason Crow*


CO-07 (Jefferson County) See Full Big Line

(D) Brittany Pettersen



CO-08 (Northern Colo.) See Full Big Line

(D) Yadira Caraveo

(R) Gabe Evans

(R) Janak Joshi




State Senate Majority See Full Big Line





State House Majority See Full Big Line





Generic selectors
Exact matches only
Search in title
Search in content
Post Type Selectors
October 04, 2017 02:02 PM UTC

CONFIRMED: Magpul PMAGs Used In Las Vegas Massacre

  • by: Colorado Pols

As more information continues to be released about the weapons employed by the mass shooter in Las Vegas, Nevada on Sunday night, in which almost 60 people died and over 500 were wounded, we took note of one of the first photos released of one of the high-powered semiautomatic rifles modified to inflict rapid-fire destruction from 400 yards away:

Inserted into the weapon, and also lying on the floor next to it, are high-capacity AR-15 magazines that we do believe were manufactured by Magpul Industries:

Why is this detail in the flood of news about the worst mass shooting in American history worth noting? That’s because in 2013, then-Colorado based Magpul declared its intention to leave the state following the passage of gun safety legislation that, among other things, limited the capacity of magazines sold in the state to 15 rounds. The limitation on capacity of magazines sold retail in the state didn’t affect their manufacture, of course, but Magpul regarded any such limit as an unacceptable infringement on the Second Amendment rights of Coloradans. It came out that Magpul had in truth been shopping for incentive deals from other states a year before the gun bills were ever proposed, and was most likely playing the people of Colorado like fiddles. Nonetheless, it’s an article of faith among gun-rights zealots in this state that Magpul was “driven out.”

In November of 2013, it also emerged with the final report on the school shooting in Newtown, Connecticut that Magpul PMAG magazines were used in that shooting to kill 20 six and seven year old kids and six teachers and staff members. That detail wasn’t known when the debate over Colorado magazine limit law took place the previous spring–but for Democratic legislators who sacrificed their careers to pass these laws, it was a potent reminder of why their action was so important. In legislative testimony in subsequent years on perennial legislation to repeal the magazine limit, the sister of one of the teachers killed at Newtown, Jane Dougherty, tells the story of how the shooter’s pause to reload his weapon gave children a chance to get away.

Now we have another moment in which a Magpul product fulfilled its designed purpose according to specifications–and to horrifying effect. As Colorado Senate Democrats said in March of 2013:

For ourselves, we will not lose a wink of sleep knowing that the manufacturer of the high-capacity magazines used in both the Newtown and now Las Vegas mass murders is no longer located in Colorado.

In fact, we will sleep better.


59 thoughts on “CONFIRMED: Magpul PMAGs Used In Las Vegas Massacre

  1. This has nothing to do with the shooting in LV.

    There are dozens of companies that manufacture magazines of this capacity or even greater. You are starting to sound like Infowars.

    Maybe you are mad because your constituents lost their jobs, as well as some tax base.

    1. I’m actually angry about the carnage, the loss of life,  and the horrendous injuries . . . 

      . . . and the fact that yet once again your ilk will bury their heads in the sand and deflect and spout and spew that there’s nothing that anyone could have, or even should have, done to prevent (or even minimize) this . . . 

      . . . What exactly are you mad about?

        1. Nobody here wants to abolish the second amendment, in spite of your claims to be able to magically mind read our evil intentions.

          What I want, in case you actually care, is to license guns as we do cars.

          You hurt someone with a car / gun? No license for you.

          You refuse to get safety training to operate your car / gun? No license for you.

          Mentally ill? Threatening people? No license for you.

          Recreational hunting with approved safety training? You're good to go.

          Home defense with approved safety training and regulated (not military full auto) weapons? Guns locked in a safe or with smartlocks? Defend your fortress, dude or dudette.

          Concealed carry class? They're going to check your background, so you'd better not have any of that mental illness/ threatening folks stuff in there.

          I'm the ex spouse of someone who years ago, threatened to kill me, is mentally ill, has threatened other people, when he's in his "manic phase". Guess what? It's far enough in the past that he has no problem passing background checks and buying guns. At gun shows, they don't even bother with the check most of the time.

          You can best believe he rattles off the same nonsense you spout about libs and feminazis grabbing his guns. In reality, it's other family members who find one excuse or another not to provide him with the means to make his empty threats come true. 

          He sounds just like you and Ted do, ranting on about feminazis and "pussifying the country". Peas in a pod. Good luck with the manufactured victimhood and mentalist tricks. I'm sure they'll be very attractive to your future romantic interests.


          I actually came home from work for lunch so that I could respond to this crap not on the company servers. Don’t expect more replies from me today. You’ve already written the same old tired BS you cribbed from your NRA / NAGR talking points.

          1. I've gone to the Tanner gun show in Denver a couple of times and background checks are required, so I think that's the rule in Colorado. Don't know about other states but I would support a Federal law requiring background checks at all such venues.

          2. Where did I claim to be able to read minds or know what you think? Individuals can have varied opinions but we have seen this time and time again. The NET result of the opinions coming from that side is endless calls for more restrictions on what is already the most restricted enumerated right that we have. That is the NET opinion of the left, please don't insult my intelligence by arguing otherwise. Laws have been struck down as unconstitutional while also being widely supported by a certain segment of the population. In no way to I trust those people to stop short of infringement.

            As far as your license required to exercise a right, I'm afraid I must disagree. That is called a privilege and makes it very easy to impose more an more limitations on who can own guns until there are so few people that they really have no voice and the result is exactly what I said some people were after. The truth is that one of the biggest reasons gun owners like myself resist any restrictions proposed by they left (as they usually are) is because we know it will simply never stop. We know because the mindset of our opponents is made clear by their actions and words. "Mr. and Mrs. America turn 'em all in"

            If you have tried to purchases a gun at a gun show you would know that 99% of the guns for sale there are for sale by licensed dealers. These dealers are required by law to do a NICS background check through the federal government before they sell you a gun. That's on a federal level, individual states have more restrictions.

            I never said a word about "feminazis", are you a mind reader like you accused me of being? I'm not even a conservative, if that is your assumption. Don't group me with other based on a single similarity, that we support the second amendment….as if that is something to criticize someone over.

            The second amendment is already one of the most restricted supposed "rights" that we have, yet more than anything certain people call for more. You might not value this particular amendment but I defend it as if it is the first.

              1. Vger, what do you see a "well-regulated militia" looking like?

                I see it as the legitimate armed law enforcement people at Federal, state, and local level; Federal Marshalls, Secret Service, FBI, CIA, National Guard, city police forces.

                Right wing extremists see it as some kind of revolutionary force composed of well-armed people like themselves, "protecting" the country from those who are not like themselves.

                How do you see it?

                Not wanting to start a debate, just curious.

                1. You see, they get around that clause in the Second Amendment by turning the comma into a period, or by declaring themselves to be members of a self-proclaimed citizen's militia. Like their citizen's courts and citizen's grand juries and all the other crap those people spew.

                  God knows that most of them (there are a few who have actually served) wouldn't enlist in the National Guard or active duty Army – think Ted Nugent and his distinguished military service.

                2. It's a long story, mj.  Essentially, as English historian Corelli Barnett notes, the English nobles didn't trust the king with a permanent standing army, fearing he would use it to suppress their rights.  Instead, they loaned him their personal levies.  

                  This distrust carried over to the U.S. Constitutional convention and, after conceding we needed a core national army and navy, the Second amentment was proposed to ensure states could maintain their own militias as a countervailing force.

                  That is not really disputable, though it is news to the ammosexuals.  The issue is whether the amendment also confers a personal right.  I think it does, but far from the absolute right the ammosexuals think.

                  The colorado Constitution, in contrast, does clearly confer a personal right to keep and bear arms in defense of home and propertyand in aid of the civil authority if so summoned.

                  Liberal scholar lawrence tribe is among those who believe the u.s. Second amendment confers a personal right, so it's not entirely a left right thing.   But the absolute right here is for states to maintain the national guard, not for donald draft dodger to own a machine gun.

            1. Battle of facts with a gun industry troll….Mmm, tasty.

              JustinCase 10/5/17 "Where did I claim to be able to read minds or know what you think? "

              On 10/5/17, you wrote:The truth is that it people like you hate guns to begin with and it would not matter if this event never occurred, you would love to ban all guns. If you guys were just honest about that I could respect your position more. You act like you want more restrictions because of this event but the truth is that it's not the lives lost at this event that motivate you, it's just an excuse.

              That is mind reading, gaslighting, pretending you know people's motivations and emotions. A logical fallacy and dishonest debate tactic.

              I happen to think that you, BigDaddyTed, and Viper are trolls paid by  the firearms industry – you all show up , with no prior posting history, to protest an article with "Magpul" in the headline. But at least my supposition as to your motivations has more evidence than yours does about mine. Perhaps you really do fear that the latest boogeyman (Obama, Clinton, Pelosi, Bloomberg, liberal bloggers) are going to come and take your toys away.

              You should rest easy; we didn't manage to do anything significant after 20 little kids were gunned down
               in Newtown, CT – as long as your paymasters hold the leashes of "reps" like Cory Gardner, your murderous toys are safe.  

              But back to the Battle of the Facts: Let's look at MURDER RATES, as you typed in your all-caps hysteria*:

              The United States has the highest homicide rate of any advanced, industrialized country: 5 / 100K, compared to any other developed country. We also have the highest gun ownership rate, 88/100, of any developed country.

              Not all "gun fanciers" (I'm being polite in deference to Vger and Negev) who have collections of 30+ weapons go out and murder people; yet some do. And there is a relationship between readily available guns and firearm MURDER RATES.

              Yes, the MURDER RATE by firearm of the USA is low compared to, say, Venezuela, Colombia, or the Sudan per UN study),- but do you really want to claim superiority because we are not ruled by ganglords? Per 2015 Small Arms Survey.

              The USA still has a higher MURDER RATE than any other developed, industrialized country, per research compiled by Tewksbury in this chart:

              The same research is duplicated in this chart on Vox:

              So your MURDER RATES argument really doesn't hold up. The US has a high murder rate compared to other developed democratic countries, and a disproportionate number of these murders are by firearm.

              Your "slippery slope" fallacy argument that gun licensure would inevitably lead to no one being able to have guns is also nonsensical. I don't think I need say more about that.

              When next you post, use the little "link" icon above to paste the URL for the source you're citing – or at least, take the lazy way out, and post the link in its entirety. That's if you want to have any credibility on here defending gun industry profits and the size and lethality of your weapons collection.

              (*guys hate it when you call them hysterical – that's their preferred insult for a woman who disagrees with them. Consider it my small contribution to the "pussifying" of America -h/t to Big Daddy Ted)



              1. I happen to think that you, BigDaddyTed, and Viper are trolls paid by  the firearms industry

                You cannot completely discount the possibility that they are Patrick, Timmy and Dudley who are shilling out of conviction rather than for cash.

                But you are correct….they tend to appear when the cause calls.

      1. Nope, not me. 

        I saw many Surefire 100 round magazines in the photos too. If you click the link you will find they are sold out. The are located in California, which has prohibited the manufacture, sale, import and transfer of magazines capable of holding more than 10 rounds since 2000. 

        I can buy 30 round Magpul magazines at most gun stores locally here in CO, so enforcement of the law may be in question at this time.

        You should also check out Maghack

         The magazine ban ideology has and will continue to flood the market with more products and purchasers and the continued focus on ineffective laws has created a response that compounds the problem exponentially each time it is introduced. 

        You are flogging a dead horse and are contributing to the proliferation, which is counterproductive to the intended purpose. 




  2. Today, on this Feast of St Francis of Assisi, the words of Papa Frank ring ever true.  (I realize #ProsperityJesus considers these concerns horseshit)

    ‘Industry of Death’: Pope Francis on Arms Dealers

     “Here we have to ask ourselves: Why are deadly weapons being sold to those who plan to inflict untold suffering on individuals and society?"

    According to the leading analyst of defense spending, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the United States is the world’s largest weapons merchant, furnishing 56% of all international arms sales.

    In the Middle East, the U.S. provided 47% of the arms in 2014, the most recent year for this data. So it is unsurprising that Pope Francis had sharp words for Congress on arms sales.

    On top of that, it’s well known that American weapons and vehicles are in the hands of the Islamic State group, captured from, or abandoned by, Iraqi forces — meaning the U.S. has indirectly supplied the terrorists.

      1. Keep reading —

        What with all that praying, and meeting with N.R.A. lobbyists, and running to the bank to deposit their checks . . . 

        . . . it’s almost a miracle that Buck and Gardner even can still find some time every once in a while to wash their hair hands?

  3. The crimes of this man do not reflect on companies that made products he used to commit the crime. First of all, we don't even know that the Magpul mags were used, the man had a lot of guns in his room and most where probably not even used. I can tell you that he was shooting more than 30 at a time from what I have seen so that rules out the Magpul product seen in images from his hotel room. The thing is, where do people like you draw the line? Are the manufacturers of every single part, screw and spring on his gun to blame for his actions? What about the people that make the gun finish?

    The truth is that it people like you hate guns to begin with and it would not matter if this event never occurred, you would love to ban all guns. If you guys were just honest about that I could respect your position more. You act like you want more restrictions because of this event but the truth is that it's not the lives lost at this event that motivate you, it's just an excuse. The man was a multi-millionaire that passed federal background checks routinely as part of his employment, had a pilot's license and two planes. There is basically nothing that could have stopped him. He could fave flown a jet into the crowd and done far worse. 

    The truth is that your movement is an enemy of the rights enumerated in the constitution, especially 1st and second. You see the entire document as outdated much like the type of society that made the west great. You are in the process of undermining both and doing great damage as you do. Reasonable people oppose your views on this constitutional right because they see your bias and know that the calls for further restrictions will be never ending. No amount of appeasement will work, no "sensible gun law" will ever be the last. Not one inch.

    If you really cared about lives lost, black lives at that, then you would focus on why cities ruled over by democrats are so violent and deadly. You would focus on where most of the murder is rather than the .0002% of all deaths that come from so-called “mass shootings”. This is why your concern is clearly a lie, an exploit, used for political gain and power. You don’t really care about lives or black lives. You have another agenda that you are really pursuing.

    1. Yesterday, I was listening to a talk show on 560AM, about 4:30. Jason would probably know who the hosts were. Conservative Christians, I think, from other things they said. They were discussing the Las Vegas shooting….except that they weren't discussing the shooting. Not the bullets and the blood and the terror and the grief.

      What they were discussing was the equipment the terrorist* used. The magazines, the bump stocks, and how bump stocks work. They wre quite knowledgeable. And completely emotionally detached. Their tone was admiring.They sounded as if they admired this sociopath – his careful planning, his wealth, the weapons he used. 

      It was diabolical. Like Hitler meeting with his operations chief to discuss the most efficient means of murdering large groups of people.

      Your post is also diabolical, in its effort to distract from the blood and the carnage that happen because of these weapons of mass murder.

      There isn't any reason to buy a Magpul magazine, or any 30+ magazine, or bump stocks, except to kill large numbers of people quickly. They’re not good for hunting or home defense or target practice – any legitimate use of guns as tools.   That's the truth you "gun fanciers" won't ever admit to.

      The rest of your post is the same old shit – distraction – "Look over there!"

      Fake mind reading and projection: "People like you hate guns… you'd love to ban all guns"…"You don't really care about lives or black lives".

      Alternative facts (aka lies) that won't hold up to research "Cities  ruled over by Democrats are violent and deadly".

      Nice try in speaking for the billion-dollar industry of mass murder and terror.

      *Yes, angry old white men can be terrorists. Even though this one’s agenda seemed to be mere ego gratification or some psychotic motive, the effect was the same as terrorism. And these are the people inflicting violence and death on the American people now.

      1. I don't listen to talk radio, sorry. I would probably not know those people you heard and I really doubt you description of their commentary.

        My post was pointing out the deception the politicians (and some people) on the left are perpetrating. Pretending like their push for gun control is about saving the lives of others when really it's about their own view of guns. I pointed out how they don't care about lives lost UNLESS it furthers their REAL agenda. My comment wasn't so much about the shooting itself, you are correct about that. Why wasn't it about the shooting itself? Because this article wasn't about the shooting itself. Whatever you accuse me of the author is also guilty of. So how about it, is the author "diabolical, in [their] effort to distract from the blood and the carnage"? They are using the tragedy to make a political statement.

        Now, about your claim that no one needs a Magpul magazine or any 30+ mag. Magpul makes magazines in all sorts of capacities, so where is the objective "reasonable limit" according to ruler mamajama55? The fact of the matter is that it takes a split second to reload, time the shooter had. There were actually long pauses in the shooting. If he had 10 or 20 round mags he could have still done the same thing. We DON'T KNOW if the shooter actually USED any Magpul mags, for the record.

        For your information, it has been ruled in the supreme court that the second amendment SPECIFICALLY protects possession of the types of guns commonly used in the military and thus appropriate for a militia. Nothing is more commonly used than AR type rifles in these roles. If you would like to abolish the second amendment then say so, then I can respect the honesty at least. Your misunderstanding or dislike of the intended purpose of the second amendment is inconsequential as long as it is in place.

        If you read my comments with any real comprehension it will be obvious that I am speaking in generalities. Of course there are exceptions to the rule. If leftists had a monopoly on the government you and I both know what would happen over time. They would start with the low hanging fruit, arbitrary mag capacity bans and bans on so-called "assault weapons", then banning semi-autos and concealable pistols and getting worse from there. No different than has happened in other nations when gun owners tried to appease and be "reasonable". Gus what types of guns are used on the GREAT MAJORITY of murders? Super cheap pistols and shotguns, not AR15s.

        You can ignore the facts concerning the real source of gun violence in America if it make you feel better. I don't expect honesty from you. You breezed right past that argument because you don't have a leg to stand on, I get it. It helps with the cognitive dissonance. You have my pity. We will see what this man's motivations were in time, rumor has it that he was a huge leftist. Probably hated country listening "Trump supporters"….but that is just speculation…. Wouldn't be the first time, remember what happened in DC? Will the media and the left take responsibility for their exaggerations and fueling of the fire if this turns out to be the case? Nope, it's just the guns. They didn't take responsibility for DC, after all.

    2. You better brace yourself, Justin, pantie waist liberals (like John Cornyn, Lindsey Graham and Orrin Hatch) are coming for your guns starting with your bump stock…..

      And for eight years you people were crapping your pants because you believed Obama was going to infringe upon your God-given and Dudley Brown-protected Second Amendment rights.

      1. I don't doubt it. You know as well as I do that Obama wanted further gun restrictions, at least be honest about it. He spoke about it. The fact that he wasn't able to do it is not credit to him. Sorry, I don't know who Dudley Brown is. If you attempting to my me guilty by association you will have to find some other dishonest tactic.

          1. Ah, so "just in case" is an out of state (country? da, comrade!) troll…  This site may need to change it's name to International Pols if we keep getting more of these jokers.

              1. I am a gun owner, JK. I grew up hunting rabbits and squirrels to supplement our diets ( we were quite poor ).  

                After reading what you have posted here, I just want to tell you… you are completely full of shit. You no more understand the thinking of those who support sensible gun legislation, than I understand the thinking of those who support child pornography. You are a troll..that is obvious. 

                If you read my comments with any real comprehension 

                How could we do that? We are liberals. You have already judged us.

                You don't have the slightest inclination to actually listen to an argument and respond to those same arguments in an open and responsible way. You are a zealot….and an enormous waste of time, but I encourage you to continue to post your drivel here. You make a great case for gun control.

    3. Justin Kase (or Just In Case) wrote: "your movement is an enemy of the rights enumerated in the constitution, especially 1st and second……"   I assume you're referring to the 1st and 2nd amendments of the Constitution.

      Exactly what "movement" are you referring to? And since you personally have met and interviewed everyone who posts regularly on this site, you are thus able to place them in your "movement," whatever that is? I don't post here all that often. But I've made it clear that I am not a liberal, but rather am a common sense conservative. I haven't commented on the Las Vegas tragedy, to date, because I know there are no easy answers.

      What I do wonder about is why you include the 1st Amendment in your monologue. My take is that the biggest enemy today of the 1st Amendment is the far right wing; the so-called religious right. You can visit this web site;  ; to find many well documented instances of the far right moving against freedom of speech; using "religious freedom" as a means to impose fundamentalist Christian beliefs on the country and to discriminate against other citizens; trying to control female vaginas; etc. Maybe you have your "movements" mixed up??

      1. The RWNJs like selected parts of the First Amendment. For example, they love the free exercise clause when it comes to their religion but screw any other belief system. They'd like to forget the non-establishment clause. When it comes to the freedom of speech clause, they like that part but only as it's been interpreted in Citizen's United. 

      2. Exactly what "movement" are you referring to?

        The one that rules the universities, old and new media, social networks and the internet for the most part. Those who control the Overton window, punish wrong think, virtue signal and police speech. The establishment is very much leftist at this point, this website is no different. The answer is "the new left". My comment was about the average tone of opinions on this website, that does not mean that I claim to know the mind of every individual here. Just as I know that news networks might be biased despite the occasional token.

        As far as you claim that the "religious right" is the biggest threat to the first amendment, I really don't see it. I have been an atheist for over a decade by this point and, of my many problems with the religious community, attacks of the first amendment are FAR down that list. I am not saying that they never do things I disagree with or even things that I think might infringe on the 1A. I jsut don't think that they make a habit of it in general. It would be much better if you could make some sort simple of argument about how they are doing so rather than to make the claim and then provide a link to….what I'm sure is a biased source. 

        I don't understand what this has to do with the topic we are discussing. I suspect you made some assumptions about me and thought I might have taken offence to this. That really speaks to the likely hood of you being a bit too wrapped up in such things. Nothing you have mentioned thus far seems like it is related to the first amendment. I see no one imposing religious beliefs as a general rule. Discrimination can manifest in ways that do violate the first amendment but no necessarily and you are not specific. Trying to "control FEMALE vaginas" is surely your way of characterizing and exaggerating something much more reasonable. Obviously misrepresenting the other side is a sign bias and often bad faith.

        No, I know who polices speech in this day and age. It's not the religious right. Is that who you see on your TV every night? Do you see Christians having major influence over what kind of speech is allowed on campus, in the media, at the work place or from politicians? Not so much. I think one would have to be delusional to not only see that, but to see it when quite the opposite is true. Perhaps there is some personal issue you have with religion itself that is clouding your judgement?

        1. You're the one who brought up the 1st Amendment, not me. If you would like another link besides au dot org, which you apparently did not bother to visit, although you claim it is "biased," try Right Wing Watch. RWW is a newer entity, but Americans United got its start in 1947.

          Evangelical Christians continually try to impose their doctrine, which you might have learned about if you had bothered to visit Americans United. But then you claim that one has to be "delusional" to not see what is happening on campuses. I'm aware of what occurs on some campuses, and the growing blowback from students who actually want to learn, but nice generalization on your part. How many campuses have you actually visited so that you could interview people about the left wing "bias" present on campus, if any.

          As for "controlling female vaginas, "you can find whatever you want on that topic by visiting web sites of The Federalist, CNS News, as well as the sources I've cited.

    1. He is entitled to his opinion and I don't dislike the man for his opinions. I will say that he is foolish if the thinks that this could have been prevented with some sort of reasonable infringement restriction or if he thinks gun grabber with stop with what HE considers to be reasonable. Gun owners are not some monolith, believe it or not there are a decent number of Democratic gun owners. I'm sure they are more likely to falsely attribute good intentions to their party. Wishful thinking.

  4. Once again people, guns don't kill people,  people with guns kill people.  They kill good people, they kill bad people.  When you (non-gun owners) have a problem who do you call?  The people with guns, the police. They have the same weapons of so called mass destrution to protect your liberal selves. The amendment was to protect people against a tyrannical gov't. Everything gets misused, but when you get drunk and kill someone by driving a car no one blames the car.  Bad people are going to kill people one way or the other.  Chicago had some of the strictest gun laws in the country.  I'm sure the guys with intent to kill people are going by the law right? At least drop your bs agenda of getting rid of guns so that when the people with common sense need one to protect themselves or their family  they have it… Any of you remember that Hitler guy? One of the first things done was to disarm the people.  Curious as to why, so they couldn't fight back.  Guns were used to procure this country you seem determined to pussify, so your libtard ass still has the right to complain about things like this. I'm sure you'd love N. Korea if you love the gov't the controlling every aspect of your life. Your always more than welcome to leave if yall don't like the laws here. 

      1. Obviously bad people are gonna kill,  why would you you want to disarm the people who could in fact protect themselves when disarming would essentially make you an even bigger defenseless target? You don't see all these bad guys doing mass shooting where people are armed. They know better.  That's why there are attack's on schools they know the folks there are unarmed. Look at the numbers of armed attacks on counties/states where there are open carry laws.  Way lower than where your gun free/ strict gun laws regions are.  They don't want to attack people who fight back. 

      2. Let me let you in on a secret….what matters is MURDER RATE! Not total number, RATE. Not gun deaths, MURDER by any means. This is the statistic game you people like to play, you choose the stat that looks the worst even though it's not the stat that matter. You like to lump together suicides, accidents, justifiable homicides as all being the same thing. You are NOT attempting to further the truth and we second amendment supporters see that for exactly what it is. It gets to your real motivation, which is certainly NOT furthering the truth or understanding of the issue. No, you only want to win the argument even if it requires dishonest tactics. Why would I want to cooperate with such people? You have nothing but contempt for my position and you are NOT open minded NOR acting in good faith. This dooms the discussion.

          1. I tend to use "you" in the plural sense. You can see what I mean if you pay attention to where I say "you people". I am referring to people, not a person. I should have been more careful with my grammar.

              1. Dio, I'd say given the time stamp on "just in case"'s posts, English is a second language for our new found friend.  A pro, like Gerbils, just not in our timezone.

                His day starts in a few hours, which might put him in Macedonia…


                1. That’s alright, Davie, I don’t mind.  In fact, I’m kind of enjoying it — it’s been far far too many years since the wackos have had anyone posting here with better than Moderatus’s third-grade English language skills . . . 

        1. When you're dead from a gunshot wound, you're dead. I doubt that it matters much to grieving family members whether by accident, homicide, or suicide. It hurts.

          Your denial of those simple human facts speaks volumes about the real purpose for your diatribes. 

          1. When it comes to policy, context can matter. Being very general and imprecise with your treatment of facts and statistics is a great way to make bad policy. Your appeal to emotion is dishonest at best. Emotion can inform one's opinion but also cloud it. 

            You claim I ignore "simple human facts", what are those facts exactly?

            RATE: I claim that rate is more relevant when comparing nations than sheer numbers. This is objectively true and I hope I don't have to argue the point.

            MURDER: I claim that murder (the subject we are discussing) is what should be taken into account in this discussion. Seems pretty obvious to me, you solve a problem by looking at that problem, not by pretending that you can solve one bad thing by looking at another bad thing. Things like suicides and accidents are tragic but it does not follow that you find the solution to one problem by looking at other problems.Murders are not the same as suicides nor accidents, the solutions are different and so are the implications. If you are saying that they are not distinct problems with distinct solutions then you are wrong. I would like to see you argue that point.

            Suicide rates are higher in plenty of nations that have stricter gun laws than we do. The problem here is with mental health, relationships and people. I do not claim that people who commit suicide with a gun do not count or don't matter. They count just like all of the other people that commit suicide. It's disrespectful and ignorant to pretend that these cases are the same as accidents or murders. You are removing the human aspect of the problem entirely. In the case of suicides, I argue that we should focus on the plights of the individual rather than how they choose to end their lives. There are more similarities between those who commit suicide than between those who commit suicide wit ha gun and those who die from a gun accident. Isn't that obvious? I'm fine with mentally ill people that are a danger to themselves and others being prevented from having firearms. I'm not foolish enough to believe that many will not then go on to just use other means.

            Accidents are a tragic but they are not just like suicides. I think the distinctions are obvious and important……the solutions are also distinct even if they might have some similarities. Firearms can be deadly and should be treated as such. 

            Be honest, these generalizations you are making are not done in an effort to really find the best solutions to these very real problems. You are making these generalizations and false equivalencies in a self serving manner to form a narrative that agrees with your own view. By doing this YOU show that you care less for the people going through these things than you do winning a political battle and getting your way


      3. Ironic how their love of freedom and hatred of government control doesn't extend to a woman does with her uterus, or a same sex couple's right to marry one another. 

  5. Immediately after the shooting Hillary Clinton, aka "The Annoited One",  shamefully politicized a terrible tragedy by demanding the withdrawal of the silencer bill currently in Congress. Silencers were not used in Las Vegas, and in fact are ineffective in the high powered rifles used in the shooting.

    Automobile accidents kill 30,000 people a year, many of them alcohol related. So lets outlaw automobiles and alcohol. In he case of alcohol, which causes over 70,000 deaths a year , we already tried that for 13 years and it was an abysmal failure.

    Grandstanding and knee jerk reactions do not address the underlying causes of tragedies like Las Vegas which are rooted in a dysfunctional society and mental disorders.


    1. Well, cars and alcohol don't exist for the sole purpose of killing.  Also, there are things called drunk driving laws that have gotten more stringent over the years, in reaction to fatalities due to drunk driving.

      As for mental health, got any ideas on how to tackle the mental health crisis beyond the "we need to deal with mental health in this country" line?

  6. As a recovering alcoholic (27 yrs sobriety) I understand the relatedness of alcohol/drug abuse and mental health. Alcoholism is both a physical addiction and a mental affliction. I do 12 Step work  with other alcoholics in an effort to achieve sobriety and good mental health. I can't keep what I have unless I give it away.

    Several years ago I took an 8 hr. mental health awareness class and I am certified as a Mental Health First Aid Responder on how to deal with someone who is having a mental health issue or crisis, like someone who is suicidal or someone who picks up a gun intending to do harm. I can say I have put what I've learned to practical use.

    As we say in the church basements I frequent, you can talk the talk, or you can walk the walk.

    Hope I answered your question.

  7. lol Magpul. Aren't they the lying pieces of shit who claimed they left Colorado because of the large-capacity magazine legislation when in truth the move was in the works for years?

    Fuck Magpul. Fuck 'em right in the ear.

Leave a Comment

Recent Comments

Posts about

Donald Trump

Posts about

Rep. Lauren Boebert

Posts about

Rep. Yadira Caraveo

Posts about

Colorado House

Posts about

Colorado Senate

64 readers online now


Subscribe to our monthly newsletter to stay in the loop with regular updates!