I agree, but some of the proposed regulations that get passed are not any more of a burden than the BS regulations other businesses have to put up with. Personally, I think all business regulations should be treated with the skepticism activists have for abortion regulations on one side and gun regulations on the other.
To me, requiring an MD to watch someone take a pill is equivalent to requiring a dentist to watch a hygienest clean teeth. It’s a BS regulation designed to increase dentists’ incomes at the expense of hygienists, but since a basic right doesn’t seem to be at stake, the public tolerates it even though it’s unnecessary.
Actually, your biggest beef with liberals appears to be that they acknowledge the importance of the actual problems.
Limiting magazine capacity makes it a bit tougher to commit mass murder. Those few seconds spent changing clips could be several lives saved in cases like Aurora or Newtown.
You seem to be claiming both that unlimited magazine sizes are a necessary right but that the ease of changing them makes them unnecessary. Which is it?
I repeat.
I’m especially amused, if that’s the right word, by those gun “enthusiasts” who publicly deplore the NRA and its leadership, but still hold the same positions as they do, and just as fiercely.
When it’s time to actually vote on something that would have an actual effect, they don’t seem to be there, do they? When cornered, they’ll even find a way to blame the *proponents *of these measures that they themselves admit are reasonable and responsible for their failure, while deriding them for unrealism in even trying.
And still they object to being lumped in with Wayne LaPierre and Ted Nugent. If there were an identifiable difference, other than those two being honest and consistent, they might have a point.
Oh, right, I forgot: *“Freeeeeedom! Wolverines!” *:rolleyes:
Colorado is the Buffalos. Which, if used as a verb …
Magazine capacity is one of those issues that encapsulates an important principle. In this case, it’s the freedom for people to make choices for themselves, instead of having their choices artificially limited by the government.
One thing I’ve noticed: for all the noise that liberals make about being “pro-choice,” really about the only thing on which they favor choice is when it comes to murdering unborn babies. For almost everything else–school vouchers, types of guns, size of magazines, seat belts, helmets, etc.–the vast majority of liberals are stridently and vehemently anti-choice.
There is no fucking important principle here. The only thing large capacity magazines are good for is committing mass murder.
Stating your case in those terms is nonsensical. Artificially limiting choices is what the law/the government does. Absent a question of civil or constitutional rights (and none such are applicable here – it would be ridiculous to suggest the 2nd Amendment categorically rules out magazine-capacity regulation), whether a given choice should or should not be limited is a question of policy, not one of absolute libertarian principle; i.e., a question that cannot be usefully answered without studying studies and statistics and weighing practical pros and cons.
In any case, the way you stated it in the OP implies this is only the beginning. What else do you have in mind, as a lost freedom you are out to recover?
I’m chiming in to say “Yay, the good guys won.”
One thing to note about all this stuff about how “It was just “reasonable” gun-control.” There were seven bills that this legislature tried to shove down Colorado’s throat*…and those four that weren’t passed up to the Gov. show the true intent–all seven passed committee and one of which lasted until the final hour of “debate” was a bill that would allow people to sue gun manufacturers for damage their guns caused–which is ludicrous: liquor distillers (Coors, Jim Beam) aren’t held responsible if people misuse their product. Car manufacturers aren’t held responsible for people misusing a car. And before someone chimes in saying “Well, if they weren’t passed, they don’t count”, 1) it shows intent and 2) Where were you when the stuff about how there were 4 recall elections and only 2 (one of which was in a Democratic stronghold) was being discussed upthread?
As an aside, the 4 that show intent were
-
The aforementioned “sue the manufacturer if someone does something bad” one
-
Remove a law that says that, yes, college campuses don’t get a magic exemption to the second amendment, despite the fact that they want one. (Some college tried to stop people with concealed carry permits from carrying on campus and a law was passed to say “Nope, you can’t stop them. You don’t get your own special laws”) (Luckily, Joe Salazar (D) was dumb enough to be honest when he said that potential rape victims shouldn’t defend themselves on campus, they should just get a whistle. (paraphrased for sarcasm, but that’s the essence of his drivel). cite, so this one was (pardon me) shot down to cover him)
-
A law that said you had to take firearms safety courses in person. Which sounds GREAT until you realize that there’s people in rural areas and can’t easily get to a place to take the hours of training required and that in-person training does NOT require you to actually fire (or own) a gun and in-person training is far more expensive.
-
Background check fees, which is typically anti-progressive as many gun laws tend to be. “Let’s tack on a bunch of expensive fees so poor people can’t afford concealed carry, but rich folk can”
Also, these laws are so bad that
-
56 out of 61 Colorado sheriffs (in both Republican and Democratic counties) have filed suit against them saying that they’re impossible to enforce as written and that they’re incredibly expensive and burdensome cite
-
Even a sheriff in Boulder(!!) who was going to run a gun buy-back program fell afoul of these new laws and had to cancel because the laws made the event prohibitively expensive (and he had to check with a district attorney to see if it was even legal to begin with) cite. The sheriff generally supports the law, but it still made him cancel a gun buy-back and he still had to go to an attorney-general to figure out what the hell the new law meant. What will that mean for the average citizen who can’t just go to the attorney general and say "Hey, does my nephew count as “immediate family? What about my cousin’s husband?”**
So…yeah, these aren’t “reasonable” gun laws at all, they’re generally crackpot, do-nothing, “feel-good” laws that even Hickenlooper admitted (before he signed them) wouldn’t have helped prevent stuff like the Aurora shooting. ““I don’t think stricter laws would have made a difference,” Hickenlooper said at the time “He would have found a way to wreak havoc.”” (cite.
The basic concepts of these laws may have been ok, but the poisonous lack of debate or openness, the other proposals that didn’t make it through but were allowed to be debated, the horrible, vague definitions, the fact that the governor himself point blank said that these wouldn’t have stopped the Aurora shootings
So again, yay! It doesn’t remove the laws, but hopefully it’ll send a message that while reasonable measures might be ok, crazy-assed, so vague and or contradictory laws that so bad that they’re impossible to enforce and that impose a huge burden on the public and the police and lawmaking with no attempt at even the pretense of public discourse are emphatically not ok. 
*In one day, mind you, to avoid hundreds of witnesses testifying (cite–because opinions that disagree with these legislators is scary, apparently.
**There’s an exemption for background checks for “immediate family” and an utter refusal to discuss what “immediate family” actually means.
Wait, the current law is that you can’t sue gun manufacturers? What’s the rationale for an absurd law like that? Here in America, you can sue anybody for any reason.
Now, if the suit turns out to be frivolous, the courts are certainly free to dismiss it, and even to assign costs to the plaintiff. And I’ll admit, in most cases suing a gun manufacturer for the way the guns are used probably would be frivolous. But to not allow the suits at all? Why not?
I guess the argument would be, it’s not a products-liability claim if the product is not defective, but does exactly what the manufacturer designed it to do and advertised it as doing.
And that’s a good reason for a judge to dismiss the case. But that’s on the judiciary, not the legislature.
My guess is that the law is that gun manufacturers cannot be held liable for misuse of their products. Colloquially, a lot of people phrase this as “can’t sue.”
The law does not prevent anyone from filing suit. It simply provides that, as a matter of law, a gun manufacturer is not liable when his product is used as designed and injures or kills someone.
So what happens is: if someone is foolish enough to sue in spite of that law, then, the judge dismisses the case.
And the judge can do that even without the law. But one can still envision situations where it might be legitimate to hold a gun manufacturer responsible, so the law shouldn’t be tying the hands of judges that way.
16 attackers…Yoof mobs.
So why should courtrooms or town halls or state capitol legislative bodies be places where it’s illegal to carry a firearm? Why do they get a “magic exemption to the second amendment”?
Not sure if that’s the case in CO but I know it’s the law of the land here in Nevada. And frankly, I have no problem with the law. Also, why can’t a college campus just ban guns? I mean, does CO law expressly allow guns everywhere, despite what the property owner might want?
ETA: FTR, I don’t know much about the laws in question in this thread other than what I’ve read here, but I don’t think the recall election was a good idea. It’s simply not the best way to resolve issues people might have with legislative actions.
Well, in 2005, GW Bush signed the Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act. The NRA of course lobbied for it and thanked Bush for doing their bidding, and forcing a FEDERAL law on the people.
Early in the year, Colorado senators put forthSenate Bill 196(PDF!), under which manufacturers and sellers of semi-automatic rifles could be sued for acts committed with guns if they “negligently entrusted” the weapon to someone they “reasonably should have known might use the weapon to cause bodily injury.” This is essentially the same liability the rest of us are subject to all the time. The bill was withdrawn by its sponsor mainly because it potentially conflicted with THE FEDERAL PLCAA.
So, once again we have people in Colorado claiming they don’t want evil big gubment or outside interests telling them what to do voting lock-step with the NATIONAL Rifle Association protecting and enforcing a FEDERAL LAW granting special immunity to the gun industry. Just more disingenuous hypocrisy.