There have been multiple accounts created with the sole purpose of posting advertisement posts or replies containing unsolicited advertising.

Accounts which solely post advertisements, or persistently post them may be terminated.

Semiautomatic firearm ban passes Colorado's House, heads to Senate

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

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

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

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

roguetrick ,

I honestly don’t think action matters as much as magazine size. You could build a high capacity lever action and rack up one hell of a body count.

ashok36 ,

Didnt the bell tower shooter in Texas use a bolt action rifle?

mctoasterson ,

They can’t even report things correctly. If I’m not mistaken this bill bans semiautomatic rifles only. Otherwise it would ban most modern handguns. It would be almost instantly overturned.

fiend_unpleasant ,
@fiend_unpleasant@lemmy.world avatar

What would they say if people started mass knifing?

Leg ,

I imagine there’d be discussion regarding how we might restrict a person’s ability to publicly and freely stab multiple people ¯_(ツ)_/¯

Which is the correct course of action. People should not be allowed to murder people, and things should be done to make it harder to do.

fiend_unpleasant ,
@fiend_unpleasant@lemmy.world avatar

how about just prosecute the crime that is already happening? I mean murder is a crime. The most used murder weapon is a screwdriver. Should we also ban those?

Leg ,

Prosecution isn’t a preventative measure. It’s reactionary. A society should have some degree of foresight.

There’s nothing indicating we can’t design a less lethal screwdriver. I have the sneaking suspicion that screwdriver murders aren’t happening in public spaces as frequently as private ones, so there’s room for discussion on how we ought to reduce someone’s capacity for murder with one. I’m concerned that you think this is a ridiculous notion, as though a society has no choice but to allow murderers free reign over others. It’s a limited frame of mind, and nothing would ever be done about anything. I understand that that’s essentially what the idea is with gun control, but I disagree with it for many reasons.

BreakDecks ,

I dunno. Check back in with us when that starts happening anywhere other than inside of your head.

fiend_unpleasant ,
@fiend_unpleasant@lemmy.world avatar

At least something is happening inside my head.

jaschen ,

In 2014 there was this guy in Taiwan that started mass knifing people in the MRT Train station. The MOST he was able to stab was 22 people and killed 4.

He actually had to sit down to rest before continuing to stab people because he was tired. In a documentary, he trained for months to have the stamina to maximize kills. It would be different if he had a handgun let alone a AR-15.

Taiwan is a total ban for all guns.

Seems like your stupid comment backfired.

thejynxed ,

And a Uyghur in mainland China got 26, including killing four officers armed with automatic rifles (and this incident immediately preceded China throwing that part of their population into camps and ramping up their oppression against minority groups).

jaschen ,

Exactly, 25 is actually impressive. Imagine having to chase down 25 people. I would have given up after a couple. With an AR-15, they wouldn’t even need to look at the faces of the people they are killing, like that Vegas shooter in the hotel. Fucking cowards.

fiend_unpleasant ,
@fiend_unpleasant@lemmy.world avatar

That seems similar to the numbers that most “mass shooters” end up getting.

doggle ,

I don’t expect this to go over well with the federal supreme court…

Wiz ,

We’ve already established a line that some weapons are too dangerous for the general public. I wonder why states can’t draw the line of what weapons it considers are too dangerous.

DreamlandLividity ,

We have already established that some speech is too dangerous to be allowed in public. I wonder why states can’t decide what we are allowed to say or not.

Oh wait, I don’t. If you have an issue understanding opposition to a gun control law, try replacing gun with speech and see if you see the problem. Both are equally constitutionally protected rights.

Leg ,

But we have already established that some speech is too dangerous to be allowed? Yes, there is opposition to that notion, but it doesn’t change the reality that some people can and will kick up enough bullshit to start a Holocaust.

AWildBeard ,

Allow me to help.

A common take is that semiautomatic firearms are a privilege to have because they’re not necessary for self defense. As a privilege, States have the right to regulate said semi automatic firearms. Including outlaw them.

The 1st ammendment reproduction here is

Documents of more than 800 words are a privilege to write and dessiminate because on average it takes less than 800 words to convey an argument or point. Therefore, as a privilege, a state has the right to regulate said level of speech since it exceeds the level of protected and becomes a privilege. A state therefore can outlaw forms of speech exceeding 800 words.

If that example doesng jive with you, another would be:

It takes on average 1m30s for a TV News agency to tell a story. TV News and their ability to tell stories is protected 1st ammendment speech, but, since it only takes 1m30s to tell a news story, anything on the news taking longer than 1m30s is a privilege and therefore can be regulated by the state. Including outlawed by the state.

A lot of people feel that regulation of the second ammendment is very scary because of the ramifications regulation like the ones proposed could have on other ammendments. Such as the like counterparts to regulating first ammendment speech I generated above.

As a real world example; I imagine if she could, Mayor Tiffany A. Henyard would see regulation of speech such as ive described above perfectly legal and in the best interest of her community in order to stop missinformation of her mayorship and the political agendas of The News in her area.

In a similar light, gun owners are seeing the regulation attempts of semi automatic firearms and are feeling very similar to how all of us would feel in the Henyard example above. For clarity, gun owners are feeling as though they are being told that the Government has the extreme authority to tell an individual citizen that has grown up with firearms, effectively and safely uses them, that said citizen doesn’t truly understand what it is they have and that an individual collective of politicians ultimately knows whats best and safest for them… Many dont feel OK with that idea of giving up personal freedoms to some weirdo on TV that says “it has to be done for your own best interest”. To those gun owners, it feels the same as Mayor Tiffany A. Henyard appearing on TV and saying “im regulating the local news agencies in the area based on average time to convey news that is not filled with political missinformation for the collective safety, progress, and betterment of our community and my ability to lead”.

Wiz ,

The Supreme Court just this week made it much harder to collectively protest in three states, which is also in the First Amendment. So I think you’re argument is moot.

You’re right, it’s bad to restrict speech rights, but the law should be applied equally to gun rights.

Blumpkinhead ,

Free speech is being weakened, so you’d rather lose even more of your rights?

Wiz ,

People’s free access to guns puts my life more at risk. I don’t own a gun because it’s a stupid hobby and it’s dangerous.

So, in this specific instance, yes. It’s a good idea to revoke the second amendment completely.

Blumpkinhead ,

Ok, so let’s imagine you’re able to revoke the 2nd amendment. What then? Your life was never at risk from law abiding gun owners to begin with. Now only the criminals have guns, and you and I have lost our right to bear arms. How does that help?

Personally, I don’t have an issue with gun ownership being regulated (within reason). I live in a state with fairly strict gun laws, and while some of them don’t make sense, I do see the need for it overall. I’d rather fix the things that aren’t working than throw the baby out with the bathwater.

ryathal ,

No they didn’t. They didn’t give blanket immunity to organizers. They still have considerable protection established in other cases of what is required to meet non-protected speech.

force ,

Isn’t that like… most guns people actually use other than some shotguns and some handguns? And even then, why you would use a pump action over a semi-automatic shotgun is beyond me…

bastion ,

Anything but revolvers, bolt-action, and pump-action. …well, there’s muzzle loaders, too… Kinda extreme.

tacosplease ,

I’d consider a revolver to be semi automatic as well. It shoots each time you squeeze the trigger.

doggle ,

A non-double action revolver would fit the bill, but I don’t think those even exist

pyrate37 ,

Look up cowboy action shooting and guns like the Ruger Vaquero. They do exist.

JamesTBagg ,

The Colt Single Action Army is likely one of the most iconic pistols in the US, “The gun that won the west.” You’ve seen them in many movies without realizing it.
The term you’re looking for his “single action” or sometimes “cowboy action” though that will also include lever action rifles and shotguns, and break actions as well.
Single Action is defined by the trigger having the single function of releasing the hammer (you thumb and cocks the hammer which rotates the cylinder separately). Double action trigger pull will rotate the cylinder and cycle the hammer.

borari ,

deleted_by_author

    •
    JamesTBagg ,

    1st, yes, single-action revolvers are analogous to bolt action rifles. 2nd, no single actions are not considered semi-automatic. Single Action or double action refers specifically to the trigger function(s).
    Semi-automatic or fully-automatic refers to functions after the hammer falls. Semi-autos automatically cock the hammer and load the next round, then waits for you to pull the trigger again. One trigger pull fires one round, and loads one round. Fully automatic will fire a round, cock the hammer, load the next round and automatically fire it, continuously until the trigger is released or source of ammo runs dry.
    A semi-auto pistol can be single-action (see:1911) or double-action (see: M9).

    captain_aggravated ,
    @captain_aggravated@sh.itjust.works avatar

    Strictly speaking “one pull of the trigger, one round out of the barrel,” maybe. There is a distinction though.

    A double-action revolver gets the energy for moving the next round into firing position and cocking the action from the shooter’s trigger finger. This results in a rather long and heavy trigger pull, or you have to cock the hammer manually with your thumb, if the gun allows it. So with a double-action revolver, there’s an upper limit to rapid, accurate fire. You often get one or the other, seldom both.

    Semi-automatics use energy from the cartridge to eject the spent cartridge, strip a new one from the magazine and cock the action for another shot. Because the shooter doesn’t have to do all that work with their fingers, it is much easier to shoot rapidly while maintaining accuracy.

    Revolvers seldom hold more than 6 shots before requiring a fairly lengthy and fiddly reload, semi-automatics hold 7 shots minimum with some guns holding as many as 17 rounds before requiring a much simpler magazine swap.

    Because of the gap between the cylinder and the barrel allowing hot gases to escape, revolving rifles are rare, which is why they tend to go from a manual loading system like a bolt action to semi-automatic.

    Thing is, it doesn’t really matter. Firearm engineering isn’t the cause of shootings. President Kennedy was killed with a bolt action rifle. Columbine was a failed bombing, the murders were done with a shotgun and an open-bolt pistol which AFAIK has successfully been banned. Virginia Tech was done with handguns. A large number of them have been done with AR-15 patterned semi-automatic rifles.

    As much fun as it would be to ban all guns, if for no other reason than to hurt the Republicans’ feelings as punishment for being such thoroughly shitty “people”, it’s just not a thing that’s going to happen. Pandora has opened that box. There’s other things that need to happen, like, reality needs to contain the possibility for ordinary people to survive on wages they’ll actually be paid. But, recall that the Republicans are thoroughly shitty, they don’t want that to happen either.

    xia ,

    It’s back to revolvers, boys! Yee haw!

    Skyrmir ,

    This just seems like a stupid time to be pressing legislation like this. I don’t even disagree with it myself. I just think it’s idiotic from a political perspective. The Dems can see the GoP struggling with the fall out of Roe v. Wade, and they still want to step into this fight now?

    Wogi ,

    Step in and lose as it’s swiftly struck down by one of the most conservative courts in history.

    Manmoth ,

    the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

    You don’t have to be a conservative to recognize it’s a violation of the 2nd amendment.

    bradorsomething ,

    Looks well regulated to me!

    Wogi ,

    Man people really love to drop off the first half of that sentence when quoting the second amendment.

    Who’s being denied access to arms? It doesn’t say you get any firearm you want and there’s plenty of precedent keeping certain firearms regulated.

    Also, which militia are you a member of, specifically?

    Manmoth ,

    It doesn’t say you get any firearm

    It says shall not be infringed which means what it says. There is no prescription for what is allowed but instead the opposite. The government cannot and should not prevent the population from arming itself. If people think that’s disagreeable then they should amend the constitution not defy it.

    The constitution was written by people who had just overthrown a government. This amendment wasn’t written to protect the rights of hunters. It’s specifically to enable the people to take control if the government gets out hand.

    Also, which militia are you a member of, specifically?

    Do you think the US would allow a militia to exist when it’s entire purpose is to be a check on government power?

    Wogi ,

    The amendment specifically states that it’s there to aid the common defense.

    You really aught to read the entire amendment.

    Wogi ,

    Also the idea that the founding fathers wrote down the bill of rights, still battle weary with fear of future governments is completely false.

    The bill of rights was written ten years after the war had been settled, with a significant faction of the founders worried about another revolution.

    They had just come out of the Articles of Confederation, a government that had no authority to tax or raise an army. The second amendment was written to address specifically that issue. That we need a militia to defend the country since we really can’t do it any other way, and don’t want to. So might as well let farmers have guns, much to the dismay of the federalists.

    Burn_The_Right ,

    Conservatives are demanding the widespread oppression and even slaughter of our nation’s most vulnerable groups and the best we can come up with is “let’s disarm ourselves”. FFS

    Why not outlaw far-right ideologies like nazism? The conservatives would oppose that too, but it’s something all the normal people can agree on.

    histic ,

    While not opposed to the last statement it would be a terrible idea in the real world with corrupt government

    pyrate37 ,

    Because of the 1st amendment. Kind of the foundation of the USA outside money.

    Olhonestjim ,

    Sounds like a loophole in the 1st amendment that needs fixing.

    JamesTBagg ,

    I think you’re missing the hyperbole in their statement. They’re suggesting they’re both misguided ideas.
    We could also argue, but the 2nd Amendment protects the 1st.

    BreakDecks ,

    If the government ever decides to take up arms against us, we are already screwed even with the massive oversupply of civilian weapons of war.

    Sam_Bass ,

    My .22 varmint rifle is semiauto. They take those too?

    intensely_human ,

    Sounds like it’s only a ban on sale and transfer. Keep that gun.

    Sam_Bass ,

    I is. It was a birfday giff from ma mamaw

    Ultragigagigantic ,
    @Ultragigagigantic@lemmy.world avatar

    Imagine still wanting gun control people after January 6th 2021 and the police violence of the George floydd protests.

    We’re on our own, stop hiding your heads in the sand.

    SocialistRA.org

    CancerMancer ,

    The only 2021 protests where people weren’t getting their eyes shot out by pepperballs and beanbags were the ones where people were armed. Message fucking received.

    Roflmasterbigpimp ,
    @Roflmasterbigpimp@lemmy.world avatar

    I first read they ban semiautomatic fire alarms, and was wondering why and what even a semiautomatic fire alarm is

    bastion ,

    An electronic voice:

    Stupid human - your building seems to be burning. May I sound the alarm now?

    How about now?

    Perhaps before you die of smoke inhalation, then?

    Hello?

    quindraco ,

    If it passes there, it could bring Colorado in line with 10 other states — including California, New York and Illinois — that have prohibitions on semiautomatic guns.

    Zero states ban semiautomatic firearms.

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    It’s an AWB, yes, some states do ban some semi-auto guns.

    butwhyishischinabook ,

    Yeah but AW is a meaningless label that means whatever the specific AWB says it means, AFAIK none of the states flat out prohibit the sale of all semiautomatic firearms, correct?

    PriorityMotif ,
    @PriorityMotif@lemmy.world avatar

    The co bill does ban all semi rifles.

    butwhyishischinabook ,

    Sorry, I should have been more clear. I mean CO would be the first to do that, correct? Honest question.

    HelixDab2 ,

    Cool.

    Now pass some laws banning hate speech, and regulate what religions can and can’t talk about; the pope has no business saying that transgender ideology is sinful! While they’re at it, they should make sure that criminal defendants are required to confess if they have committed a crime, and it would probably be a lot easier to just forbid lawyers from working with people charged with crimes. Oh, and ban pot and booze, since those and TikTok are going to be the downfall of the youth.

    capem ,

    This will never get past the Supreme Court because it is blatantly unconstitutional.

    Nice job wasting money posturing for your base, colorado democrats.

    You’re just like the grifters in florida.

    Kbobabob ,

    People would still have access to the OG weapons that the Constitution was talking about?

    explodicle ,

    I’ll take that deal if we can replace cops with militias too.

    ryathal ,

    Cool I can have a 12 pound cannon and grape shot then?

    Kbobabob ,

    Actually yes. I used to have one. Restored it for civil war reenactments. We would shoot pumpkins with it.

    Skyrmir ,

    As long as it’s not concealed on your person.

    butwhyishischinabook ,

    Yeah I definitely remember the words “smoothbore musket” in the 2A. People thinking this law is a good idea have huge “but I love my local PD, they’re so helpful and I never get so much as a ticket, just flirt a little” energy.

    blazera ,
    @blazera@lemmy.world avatar

    If you read this, after this is struck down i want you to remember this bill the next time you read about another mass shooting. I know youre numb to them but realize they arent normal for developed countries.

    Buelldozer ,
    @Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

    It’s not a “Semi-Automatic Firearm Ban” it’s an Assault Weapons Tax. Seriously the only penalties in this bill are modest ($750) fines.

    No matter which side of this debate you are on this legislation is a joke.

    Talaraine ,

    Are we reading the same link?

    A person in violation of the prohibitions will be assessed a first-time penalty of $250,000 and $500,000 for each subsequent violation.

    Buelldozer ,
    @Buelldozer@lemmy.today avatar

    Here’s the actual Do you find that dollar amount listed anywhere but in the summary?

    Talaraine ,

    I read the link you posted, and is the summary of the actual text of the bill inaccurate? Not even trying to argue.

    catloaf ,

    Either it is, or the bill was amended and one of the two is out of date.

    BlackRing ,

    I’m more concerned that something that important is only in the summary. Either I don’t understand how bills are written, granted in a state I don’t live in, or the text was changed but the summary not?

    Maggoty ,

    It might refer out to an already existing class of punishment. I will admit I don’t have the time to read it right now to see if that’s the case. I am severely disappointed though if it’s not actually all semi-auto weapons. Trying to divide military from civilian semi-auto rifles is ridiculous.

    BallsandBayonets ,

    Like the “End Hedge fund ownership of residential properties” bill that is just a tax on hedge funds that own over 100 residences, a tax that they will happily pass on to their tenants (after adding another 25% on top to cover the emotional cost of being taxed by the evil government!).

    Laws don’t have teeth in this country because they are always designed to only punish the poor.

  • All
  • Subscribed
  • Moderated
  • Favorites
  • •
  • [email protected]
  • random
  • lifeLocal
  • goranko
  • All magazines
    •