Skip to main content

Wimping out

Colorado Gov. John Hickenlooper (D) recently told a group of sheriffs that if he and his staff had known ahead of time how much "commotion" a ban on high-capacity magazines would cause, "we probably would have thought about it twice." The Democrat blamed a staff member for making a "commitment" on his behalf that all but forced him to sign the ban, and he said that he never actually expected the measure to pass the state legislature. Hickenlooper also said that after "all the kerfuffle," he went back and got "some facts that we should have had at the beginning."
Apparently death and destruction is not a valid reason.

Nobody and I mean nobody has explained to me why apart from a mass killing spree would you ever need a high capacity magazine in civilian life.

He would have rethought because it is hard? It caused a kerfuffle? Oh the horror, was it a mass kerfuffle?

The victims and their families have it easy?

I ask again what facts justify massive magazines, is there a constitutional right to kill in the most efficient way possible?

If hunters require a magazine with 20 rounds, either they must be pretty poor shots, or the wildlife attacks on mass and they must be able to defend themselves from hundreds of angry rabbits.

Surely good men with guns in the carnage must be hoping that the bad man must pause to reload, but no, apparently he who has the largest magazine wins? Nuts.

The only reason for a high-capacity magazine is to kill en masse, and killing en masse has been all to prevalent in our public places. Any tiny baby step to try an resolve this mass murder results in a kerfuffle and causes politicians to run for cover.

It's just plain crazy.

Originally posted to LaFeminista on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:12 AM PDT.

Also republished by Shut Down the NRA and Colorado COmmunity.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  stopping to reload tastes like chicken (11+ / 0-)
    If hunters require a magazine with 20 rounds, either they must be pretty poor shots, or the wildlife attacks on mass and they must be able to defend themselves from hundreds of angry rabbits.

    Warning - some snark may be above‽ (-9.50; -7.03)‽ eState4Column5©2013 "If we appear to seek the unattainable, then let it be known that we do so to avoid the unimaginable." (@eState4Column5)

    by annieli on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:16:35 AM PDT

  •  I am opposed to weapons restrictions (5+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Utahrd, dougymi, kurt, ban nock, gzodik

    in general, becausethere is absolutly no evidence, after a hundred years of trying it across the world, that gun laws reduce violence. In fact, although it is not conclusive the evidence indicates that weapons restrictions actually increase violent deaths.

    That said, I completely agree about high capacity magazines. As a hunter, I know there is absolutely no reason to have more than a few rounds in a hunting rifle or pistol. In a true self-defense situation, either the issue is resolved in the first few shots or it is too late. The only possible justification is for "defense" against the government. And we all know where that goes.

    So although I'm opposed to most gun laws, restricting high capacity magazines and automaic weapons makes total sense. There is no legitimate purpse for these in civillian life.

      •  I would post links to three studies, (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        ban nock

        One from Harvard, one from the Department of Justice, and a third from another government agency I can't recall - all three of which are reviews of the evidence, including all pior studies. All come to the same conclusion - if there is any association between gun control and violence it is a negative association. (Note - not GUN violence, the standard red herring, but violence overall. When gun violence goes down, other forms of violence rise at least as much.)

        Unfortunately, I'm on vacation and my computer is 1200 miles away. But then again, you couldn't provide a link, either.

        •  Outcomes of the violence? (4+ / 0-)

          If there are such studies, with such conclusion, did they also say what the outcomes were for the violent incidents studied?  Was there perhaps some difference in lethal violence?

          “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

          by Catte Nappe on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:51:32 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My understanding is that the NRA has prohibited (6+ / 0-)

            any federal agency from doing any research on gun violence, its cost or prevention.

            By NRA, of course, I mean their wholly owned subsidiary politicians.

            •  Your understanding is wrong. The opposition is ... (0+ / 0-)

              Your understanding is wrong.

              The opposition is against specifically the CDC performing studies by approaching the issue as if a gun were as aimlessly dangerous as a contagious disease or a poisonous gas.

              The opposition is because of the way that such a study is constructed to be inherently biased by being based upon a presumption that a gun is the same sort of hazard as a barrel of toxic waste leaking into groundwater.

              •  To clarify… If the CDC approached it in a diffe... (0+ / 0-)

                To clarify…

                If the CDC approached it in a different manner, without treating a gun as if it were a typical hazmat substance that requires a full body suit to protect from airborne poisonous particles, then that study might well not be a problem.

              •  Actually, my understanding of the effect of the (3+ / 0-)

                Dickey Amendment, and the 2011 amendment to the NIH appropriations bill which included similar wording, is correct. The amendments prohibit the spending of any funds to "advocate or promote gun control." But we all know what the bottom line is. The NRA does not want any studies of gun violence because they know that any study would result in someone using the study to advocate for greater gun control.

                Following the January 2011 shootings in Tucson, Ariz., (in which Rep. Gabrielle Giffords was injured), the New York Times published an article reporting that the CDC went so far as to “ask researchers it finances to give it a heads-up anytime they are publishing studies that have anything to do with firearms. The agency, in turn, relays this information to the NRA as a courtesy.”
                American Pyschological Association
                Gun violence research: History of the federal funding freeze
                The NRA has had veto power over CDC spending for years. The result has been that everyone is afraid to do any gun research. Which was the point of the Dickey Amendment. The CDC and the NIH are the two main federal funding sources for scientific research.

                Prior to the Dickey Amendment in 1996, $2.6 million was budgeted for "research on gun violence" in the 1997 budget.

                Since 1996 the CDC’s funding for firearm injury prevention has fallen 96 percent and is now just $100,000 of the agency’s $5.6 billion budget
                So tell me again that research is allowed. Under any terms other than those that result in the conclusion that guns are good. And that are approved by the NRA.
        •  lol not GUN violence... (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          Whyever would anyone think you were talking about GUN violence in a diary like this one. For goodness sake.

      •  Mexico? (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Catte Nappe, ypochris

        Montana has the same guns laws as Texas.

        Why don't people smuggle guns from Montana to Canada and shoot each other?

        "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

        by Utahrd on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:02:24 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sure that's not because (0+ / 0-)

      because one side has an overwhelming advantage in either firepower or surprise?

      I'm highly skeptical of generalizations regarding incidence of gun violence in which their is a mutual exchange of fire.  The data is thin and sparse, concentrated in a handful of municipalities, and heavily oriented at police-perpetrator combat.  

  •  Suppressing fire (5+ / 0-)

    That's generally what belt-fed and/or large magazine weapons are used for in warfare.

    In hunting/self defense purposes, you'd use a large capacity magazine either because you didn't want to carry a spare (especially since multiple are cumbersome to deal with on a long trip) or because you're concerned about reloading in a gunfight (which is rare, but police officers have died due to having to reload in gunfights, in particular with revolvers.)

    So, yes, there's legitimate uses for them.  Furthermore, if a 2nd amendment weapon is to be used for militia purposes, it would basically require a high-capacity military magazine.  High-capacity bans have only survived so far because the court is turning away 2nd amendment cases of all forms.

  •  "some facts that we should have had"? (4+ / 0-)

    I don't suppose he specified what those facts were?

    Yuk. Just yuk.

    "Tea is soothing. I wish to be tense." - Rupert Giles

    by CelticOm on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:28:06 AM PDT

  •  Silly, because without it there can't be as (10+ / 0-)

    many mass shootings, and without mass shootings, the NRA can't drum up enough fear to sell more guns!

    Gods, this is so easy. And sad.

  •  Your premise (11+ / 0-)

    is the sane one: why do we need these things?

    They are starting from the point of view that any and all weapons should be legal unless Thomas Jefferson videotaped a statement specifically saying otherwise.

  •  It's a lobbying effort (7+ / 0-)

    Since the NRA is just a front for gun manufacturers any opportunity to further their cause is leveraged as much as they can.

  •  Hunting? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bruddaone, ban nock

    Remember that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with hunting; it has to do with combat forces and weapons*.  Magazine capacity is a major concern for combat weapons.

    *As it has been interpreted by the courts, more or less.

    •  In combat (0+ / 0-)

      "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

      by LaFeminista on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:42:13 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Ah, I see. (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm not a tactical expert and have never been in the military, but here are the uses of larger magazines:

        1.  Suppression fire.  People don't like to look out from cover when they're being shot at, so a sustained series of shots on someone's position can keep them blind and delay their own activity.  Larger magazines better allow the use of suppression fire.  Usually, one unit will use suppression fire on a defensive position, and another unit will maneuver for advantage.

        2.  Avoiding reloading in close quarters combat.  If combatants are close to each other, then reloading is highly risky.  In that sort of situation, larger magazines support more burst fire which increases the odds of hitting an enemy and hitting them with more than one bullet.

        3.  Clubs.  I've heard of larger magazines being used as cudgels.  It might be apocryphal.

        They do create technical problems, though: they weigh down the weapon and can be more prone to jamming.

        •  Clubs... 30 round ar magazine - 7.5 inches long... (0+ / 0-)


          30 round ar magazine - 7.5 inches long

          90 round ar snail-shell magazine - 8 inches diameter

          30 round pistol magazine- 8 inches long

          I don't see any of them being useable as a club.

  •  It always come down to the sperm count. (0+ / 0-)

    How to avoid a sperm count kerfuffle:

    1. Avoid overheating your testicles.
    2. Wear a jockstrap when you play sports.
    3. Massage your body with herbal oils.
    4. Reduce stress levels.
    5. Stop smoking.
    6. Drink alcohol moderately.
    7. Ejaculate less frequently.
    8. Be careful around toxins.
    9. Be wary of medications.

    I think clowns wear makeup just to get my attention. Actually, I’m more of the big shoe type.

    by glb3 on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:41:16 AM PDT

  •  Guns have more rights than people nt (3+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:45:47 AM PDT

  •  Safety videos clearly show (3+ / 0-)

    NRA Ted Nugent -


    James Yeager

    The need for speed.

    Don't send a teddy bear to the Martinez family, they don't want you to intrude on their grief - send a postcard to a politician Not One More

    by 88kathy on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 10:50:18 AM PDT

  •  How about the converse? The specifics of the AWB (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    LaFeminista, Utahrd, rduran

    I am not a gun expert, but my understanding of the Assault Weapons Ban was that it first created a new category of firearm--assault weapon--that had never really been used in firearm terminology. It then proceeded to name a number of specific guns down to manufacturer and model number and classed guns as assault weapons based purely on the presence of at least two cosmetic features and the presence of a detachable magazine. The NY SAFE act has gone even further, basing the ban on a single cosmetic feature and a detachable magazine and an even lower capacity than the federal ban.

    As far as I can tell, the whole premise of such bans is that "these guns look scary." Personally, I'd prefer not to be shot with a .223 round regardless of it came out of an AR-15 or a wooden stocked hunting rifle.

    I think high-capacity magazines are generally silly, especially the drum types. For that matter, I think civilian guns patterned on military designs are silly as well and if you took an AR-15 to the shooting range or especially hunting I would make fun of you. But I don't see why there's this desire to ban guns based on form and not function.

    •  there is too much silly around this whole "need" (3+ / 0-)

      in my opinion

      "I decided it is better to scream. Silence is the real crime against humanity." Nadezhda Mandelstam

      by LaFeminista on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:00:53 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Need is NOT a requirement in firearms ownership (0+ / 0-)

        Most recent changes in laws in California, Hawaii and Guam have proved that.  No longer May issue states. They are now Must issue states, meaning that if you are not a prohibited person, they MUST issue a permit.  This after Hawaii hadn't issued a private gun owner a permit in 20 years (except former cops, etc). NO STATE HAS GONE FROM SHALL ISSUE TO MAY ISSUE.  Only the other way.  Need is NOT contingent for exercising constitutional rights.

        •  This is not true...yet... (0+ / 0-)

          Peruta has not been finalized and Harris is still trying to intervene, and until that happens, then California is still may issue and will remain may issue even after Peruta is finalized untill the good moral character willy nillyness is sorted out. California is a long way from Shall Issue.

          California is losing in the courts but they are a long way away from allowing people to exercise their rights.

    •  Ny safe act has already been defeated (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Utahrd, JayFromPA, rduran

      Manufacturers have already produced compliant AR15s. Just goes to show how silly these bans, based on how scary a rifle looks, really are.

    •  Because that's how Americans do things (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Criminalize or decriminalize.  It's a win-win for everyone. Something gets banned, the other side gets to claim oppression.  Something's legalized, the other side says public safety's at risk.  About the only thing that changes is the number of people of color who will ultimately bear the brunt of this policy posturing.

  •  The NRA/KKK PR war against us is very successful (2+ / 0-)

    I voted Tuesday, May 6, 2014 because it is my right, my responsibility and because my parents moved from Alabama to Ohio to vote. Unfortunately, the republicons want to turn Ohio into Alabama.

    by a2nite on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:01:28 AM PDT

  •  We don't need a 2nd amendment or a 4th (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    So how is Colorado going to keep people from buying high capacity magazines in Utah or Wyoming?

    Every car on I25 and I70 should be searched.  

    "states like VT and ID are not 'real america'" -icemilkcoffee

    by Utahrd on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:07:09 AM PDT

  •  "en masse" (2+ / 0-)

    It's a nit, I know... but it kept throwing a speed bump in front of me.

    On to the larger point...

    (a)  if you're hunting a high capacity magazine isn't going to do you a whole lot of good.  Basically if you didn't hit it with the first shot -- maybe the second if you're quick -- you aren't gonna hit it.  Cos it's gone.


    (b) while I haven't actually kept up with hunting regulations (since I don't hunt) I'm sure that at one time there was one such rule that said you couldn't load more than 3 rounds in your shotgun, and had to have a magazine plug to prevent it from carrying more than that.  I'm sure the rules vary by state, almost as sure that in at least some states said rules are no longer on the books, but even if they're not... see (a) above.

    So unless the national guard has started conscripting locals to serve in the minutemen, there's not a reason I can think of to need a 20-, 30-, 100-round magazine.

    I'll believe corporations are people when one comes home from Afghanistan in a body bag.

    by mojo11 on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 11:56:47 AM PDT

  •  Look at the FBI stats (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ban nock, rduran

    The overwhelming majority of gun violence involves HANDGUNS using less than 5 rounds.  A ban on high capacity magazines would do very little to stop gun violence. So here's the question. Do you want to reduce gun violence or do you want to ban high capacity magazines? If you really want to reduce gun violence, stop talking about assault type rifles and high capacity magazines and start talking about HANDGUNS. Clearly, the gun control movement has been an utter failure in most parts of the country because you're not being smart about it. The assault type rifles and high capacity magazines are distractions from the real issue of HANDGUNS. And no, you're not going to get everything you want, so wouldn't it better to put the time and resources into HANDGUNS? You know the gun that is involved in the majority of gun violence?

    "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

    by Texas Lefty on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 01:29:56 PM PDT

    •  because that's pretty much a non-starter.... (0+ / 0-)

      If you're having a problem getting regulations on semi-auto rifles that account for .05 percent or less use in crimes, you pretty much are going to get nothing in regards to handguns that isn't already on the books.

      Banning magazines are a fools errand, there's no science behind it and the work arounds are easy which is why it hardly gets any traction anywhere other than Progressive/Democratic echo chambers.

      Focusing on it in any form is silly and a waste of time IMO...but to each his own.

      •  Except there have been situations where (0+ / 0-)

        shooters having to change magazines have allowed people to escape - I refuse to name names, but the shooter of Giffords was tackled at that point, the Sandy Hook shooter had kids escape while he reloaded and just the other day the shooter in the Pacific NW was incapacitated by pepper spray while reloading.  Those I recall off the top of my head.

        The Aurora theater shooter had a 100 round magazine which, had it not jammed, would have given him far more kills to his rampage than it did.

        I don't know of situations where limiting magazine sizes was harmful.  I just listed three where more carnage would have happened had the shooter had a larger magazine.  Plus one more where the shooter did have a larger magazine and people were fortunate he didn't get its full effect.

        •  Except.... (0+ / 0-)

          Your first example is of a semi-automatic pistol 5.5 shots per person killed, your second example if you do the numbers is 6 shots per kid killed, both instances you could do that with a 6 shot revolver or a 10 rd  magazine and get the same results, your third example is a shotgun...if it's a standard issue shotgun 5-6 shots max.

          So what exactly does banning 30 rd magazines do....?

          The truth of the matter is that 10 rd magazines are far more efficient to use than 30 rd magazines which are more prone to failure within the first few rounds. That's a bigger impediment than reloading.  Because not only do you have to reload, but more often than not likely have to clear the jammed round as well.

          Having to reload after 10 shots just gives a shooter a chance to recover from shooting fatigue, focus and re-sight his victims in quicker.

          The military's use of 30 rd magazines probably has a lot more to do with space economy than efficiency.

          The reality is people advocating for banning 30rd magazines are really just advocating for more efficient killers...a case of... less is more.

          •  You deliberately ignored my point - that smaller (0+ / 0-)

            magazines mean the shooter has to pause from shooting and reload, thereby giving potential victims time to respond and either tackle him or get the fuck away.  Sure, if someone is trained to swap magazines quickly, maybe there would be too little time to react, but that didn't happen in these cases.  These shooters aren't military trained; they're not prepared for the chaotic situations they cause and they don't get to keep shooting.  They didn't have to reload after every victim, which seems to be what you're suggesting.

            Give one of these shooters a choice of magazines, and I'll bet that 100% of them choose the huge gun magazine and risk the small percentage chance of a jam rather than the much larger probability of continuing to shoot person after person after person.  Plus, if they need to pause, focus and retarget there's nothing preventing them from doing so with a large magazine as well.

            •  A bit more complicated than that (0+ / 0-)

              While dropping the magazine in Tuscon certainly bought victims precious seconds to counter-attack, in Aurora, Clackamas and Newton, jamming and failure to properly clear the weapon saved lives.  Evidence that shooters' reloading spared anyone at Columbine and VA Tech, on the other hand, is thin.  Then there are the countless other mass shootings where the attacker ends it or is brought down before expending his magazine.

              Bottom line, I'm skeptical that reloading has any significant impact on the lethality of active shooters.  In my guy, I'd say rate of fire (and, to a much lesser degree, available ammunition) plays a much larger role.  We should have strict controls on access to repeating firearms period.

            •  No, I didn't you chose to ignore the information- (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              Let me give you some visual aids...

              This guy say it's his first time on a AR-16 (I'll take his word for it) he changes mags in 2 secs.

              Here's a demonstration by a law enforcement officer between a novice and someone trained...most shooters from what I can tell falls somewhere in the middle:

              If you watch the first video which demonstrates someone rushing a shooter on a reload, whether trained or novice...the individual has no chance, the only reason why the kid was sucessful in the NorthWest was because the guy was using a shotgun...semi-automatic pistol or rifle...he'd be dead.

              Your second argument about running these videos it demonstrates that between each magazine change takes about roughly 2 Seconds for sake of argument let's say you get 2-8 seconds depending on the shooter and only because there's a 8 second spread that comes up in the video

              Considering that the world record for 50 yards (which is still in deadly accurate range of any weapon, mind you) by a world class trained runner focused on a task is 4.35 seconds how far do you think the average coach surfer is going to get , even taking into account adrenaline on the runners part and none on the shooters...short answer, not very far and definitely not out of range, and the only reason one will survive in that scenario is because the gun wasn't aimed at them, not because they ran, because running only enlarges the shooters sight picture, which is why they train soldiers who are going into combat, to drop to the ground,  turn their head sideways and crawl away as close to the ground as possible as fast as possible.

              The argument for restricing magazine size making a difference, is akin to the argument that a good guy with a gun stops a bad guy with a gun...both are stupid and insane on their face...for different reasons, but still insane.

               Pro-tip if your argument can be blown apart with simple demostrations, logic and's not a valid or good one and it's probably for the best it be abandoned for something more cogent, but that suggestion will fall on deaf ears, in a echo chamber, where much has been  invested heavily in said argument.

              The smart and intelligent question, the op should be asking and pondering, is not why folks need a 30 rd magazine, because that's a complete waste of brain power as the demostrations above show.

              But why are people spending so much time pondering, arguing, expending precious political capital and writing legislation about something that in the grand scheme is largely insignificant to the problem, instead of seeking something legal, constitutional and helpful to keep kids from getting slaughtered in classrooms and dying in the streets.

              You'd probably come up with something far more meaningful, effective, and significant

              sorry for the length

    •  Controlling access to handguns would be preferable (0+ / 0-)
      •  This is why I can't support the gun control side (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        They seem far more interested in punishing "gun nuts" than actually reducing gun violence. That may sound harsh, but the diaries on this site focus more on assault type rifles, high capacity magazines, and open carry than on the main source of the problem.  

        Criminals prefer handguns because they can conceal them. Kids shoot themselves accidentally with handguns because it's a lot easier to hit a vital area with a pistol rather than a rifle. People who commit suicide prefer handguns because it's easier to use you finger than your toe.  

        "I'm a progressive man and I like progressive people" Peter Tosh

        by Texas Lefty on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 07:00:51 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Which is easier? (0+ / 0-)

          Getting a meaningless plea from Starbucks and Chipotle to gun owners to leave their weapons at home or draining the swamp in communities burdened with gun violence?

          You have a hesitant march towards something resembling meaningful control in California.  You've got complete capitulation in Illinois after the 7th Circuit ruling, and Chicago and DC tinkering on the fringe of stagnant policies.  Nobody's trying anything new, like a complete ban on semiautos and repeating handguns combined with shall-issue permits for shotguns and rifles.  Or requiring potential buyers to present proof of fitness rather than relying on a background checks.  Or doing away with non-violent weapons felony and misdemeanor offenses in favor of confiscation and civil citation.

          •  Peruta is going to knock CA. off...n/t (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            •  Assuming Peruta stands (0+ / 0-)

              we're essentially looking at the same conditions as Moore v. Madigan, right?  A confluence of regulation that effectively constructed an arbitrary ban.  Cute, but post Heller not going to fly.  Fine.  We're not Japan in every respect and don't need to pretend we are.  Americans can still define objective standards for legal ownership and possession and place the burden of demonstrating fitness on the buyer.  As best as I can tell, there's no judicial or political firewall preventing Sacramento from enacting...say...a far stricter lim handguns-to-shotguns exchange program, limits on ammunition storage, periodic audits of licensed gun owners, and a limited, objectively defined class of citizen permitted to keep and bear handguns that addresses the Supreme Courts' hostility towards "complete prohibition of their use."  

  •  Hickenlooper has gotten religion it appears (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    His number one opponent is Tancredo who is maybe a little bit nutty if you haven't heard of him.

    And what exactly is the problem with high capacity magazines? It's the people who have them, not the guns. Other people, people to be made fun of and mocked, low class people, working people, Walmart people. Not rich deserving cultured people.

    Besides the danger of losing our governor we're also in danger of losing our legislature, and our US senator Udall who last time I looked was down in the polls in his race with a total shill for the oil industry.

    Gun rights aren't based on hunting. Or home defence. Colorado is not France.

    “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

    by ban nock on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 04:14:13 PM PDT

    •  Also in danger of losing the MT senate race... (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      ban nock

      In 2012 we kept the other Senate seat and the Gov.. How the high holy hell can we suddenly lose this?

      From some of what I hear about town is guns and the IRS/Benhazhi things are still getting traction.  easy to push back against the latter 2- not so much the first.

    •  Well (0+ / 0-)

      by limiting the capacity of one of the most ubiquitous, simplest, and easiest to manufacture components of a modern semi-auto system, active shooters will have to reload more often.  More reloading, more opportunity for last lunges.

      •  Average number of shots per shooting less than 4 (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        no more statistical likelihood of death by pistol than revolver.

        That's homicides.

        For suicides it's 1 shot.

        despite what you might read here people aren't going around shooting up movie theaters every day.

        “Conservation… is a positive exercise of skill and insight, not merely a negative exercise of abstinence and caution…” Aldo Leopold

        by ban nock on Thu Jun 19, 2014 at 08:22:47 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

    •  Sure, the "class card", since the other "we're so (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      a2nite, i saw an old tree today

      oppressed" cards didn't work for you.

      Y'all tried so hard to come up with a type of oppression that fit the poor beleaguered gun owners.

      "It's like homophobia!"


      "It's like racism!"


      "It's a civil rights issue!"


      "It's like sexism!"


      So finally, in one last, flailing effort at garnering sympathy for those who are so oppressed that people want to take their large capacity magazines away from them, you come up with:

      "It's a class issue!  You all hate poor people!  'Cause poor people love guns and all you richies out there hate us poors and our guns!"

      So lame.  So false.  So desperate.

      I blog about my daughter with autism at her website

      by coquiero on Fri Jun 20, 2014 at 09:49:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site