Yeah, they don’t realize at the same time we are banning guns, we are buying stock in Smith & Wesson. Win/win!
Yes it is and you have yet to provide one single piece of evidence to refute the argument.
Does your butt still hurt?
If your world doesn’t include a LOT of pro-gun rights Democrats then you don’t live in the real world.
Your reading comprehension sucks.
Played? I’m not the one nursing a sore butthole over a failed (nearly useless) gun show background check. You guys jammed that failure up your own ass.
Its not “look what you made me do” its “there are consequences to stupidity”
You seem to think that it bothers us that gun manufacturers make money when we buy guns. It doesn’t bother me any more than the fact that oil companies make money when I guy gas or car companies making money when I buy a car.
You can’t afford to blow off 15%, noone can. Its one thing to piss off an electorate that is going to vote against you anyways its another thing to piss off an electorate that either won’t vote or is likely to vote for you.
If nothing else, the recall election shows how people feel about that one narrow issue. And I don’t know how to break it to you but unless the Supreme court steps in the Republicans aren’t going to stop the voter suppression.
The recall was just a few days ago and frankly the laws are not that offensive.
They recalled the president of the Colorado senate over relatively mild gun control laws. I don’t see how you can pretend its meaningless.
Colorado is still an open carry, shall issue (for CCW) state. There is no assault weapons ban, heck there isn’t even a ban on machine guns.
Outside of Denver, aside from the magazine cap of 15 rounds (which, lets face it, is pretty fucking stupid) and universal background checks (which I think are a good idea). There isn’t a lot to distinguish Colorado from Utah. Heck you can open carry a loaded weapon in Colorado, you can only open carry unloaded weapons in Utah.
Damuri, maybe someday you’ll realize how much you’re hurting your cause with your endless foolish tantrums. But there’s no hurry - please continue to do as much as you can for as long as you can.
Has everyone seen the latest study showing a link between gun ownership rates and homicide rates?
Damuri, the democratic senator most likely to replace Morse is known to be more to the left with a stronger gun regulation stance. We’ll see how that goes.
60% of Coloradans apparently don’t like, and resent the recalls and how they were handled. I welcome the NRA back to recall someone else. C’mon, just try. 
To clarify: the Democratic senator replacing Morse as Senate President, not the city council Republican senator who got Morse’s seat.
My tantrums!!?! Pfft?
Everyone thinks you’re a joke. If Hentor wasn’t desperately seeking allies in his extremist corner of the world, he would be laughing at you too.
Yeah I guess we’ll see. I don’t know how much of a difference this has on state and local elections but I Hillary will be taking a much more moderate stance towards guns if she is interested in running at all.
The Democratic candidate for governor of Virginia has been going out of his way to look more moderate on guns (I think he is in fact more moderate on guns but he hasn’t been shy letting people know).
The gun issue is not a good issue for Democrats in swing states. Better if they drop the AWB from their platform.
Why is it stupid? I realize an expert can reload very quickly, but most people aren’t experts.
In terms of rounds actually fired, it’s arguably just as convenient to just pretend you’re in the Matrix and carry six guns rather than take time to reload. Which it seems like a lot of shooters do anyway.
That doesn’t sound arguable at all. In fact, it sounds stupid.
But I admit I don’t follow shooting incidents that closely. Can you list some recent high-profile shootings where the shooter had six guns?
You should talk; your name has become a synonym for “get off my side please” from the gun control advocates here.
Show me a post where any of them has said that, fool.
You too can please keep this shit up - the more, the better.
“Six guns” was a deliberate callback to Boondock Saints.
That said, of the recent big ones in the US:
The guy in Aurora had a 100-round mag and STILL had four guns–two of which were long arms (Remington 870, 2x Glock 22, S&W M&P15). 2012 Aurora theater shooting - Wikipedia
The guy in Sandy Hook had an XM-15 rifle, reloaded at least five times with 30-rd magazines, and was also carrying two pistols and had a shotgun in the car. Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting - Wikipedia
The Geneva County shooter in '09 used had two long rifles, a shotgun, and a pistol as well. Geneva County shootings - Wikipedia
The guy in Carthage, NC in '09 had a shotgun and two pistols. Carthage nursing home shooting - Wikipedia
So clearly it is not uncommon for modern-day mass shooters to carry more weapons than they can use at once. (the other two prototypical models seem to be “holing up somewhere hard to reach with a single semi-auto rifle and reloading repeatedly” like the Nebraska Westroads Mall shooter in '07, or using two pistols like the Virginia Tech massacre or the Binghamton shooter.)
I note in both of the cases above, smaller magazines in the 10-15 round size range would arguably not have hindered the shooter’s overall rate of fire–the guy in Aurora only got off about 50-60 total shots (due to his 100-round magazine jamming up less than halfway through) and was carrying four guns, and the Sandy Hook shooter had ample time to reload multiple times and clear a rifle jam during his spree.
This is, I feel like I have to point out AGAIN, not a call for “don’t regulate guns”. It’s a call for “don’t waste political capital on things like magazine limits or ‘assault weapon’ bans, save it up for mandatory training, better enforcement, and registration/licensing”.
In other words, say you aren’t against “reasonable laws” then vote lock-step against all of it.
Except in the case of mandatory NRA indoctrination/training. I see the NRA is all for that.
That game has gotten old, and some of us aren’t buying it anymore.
But that wasn’t the claim you made. You said it was “arguably just as convenient” for them to carry six guns. And even after backing down from six, you don’t have a good example. The first two both had 30 or 100 round magazines in their primary weapons, the third was in a nursing home where many of his victims were confined to wheelchairs and couldn’t run, and the last took place over multiple locations.
And even if they were all great examples, so what? Obviously you can’t stop everybody. But the guy who shot Gabby Giffords had a 33-round magazine, and was tackled while reloading.
There is no need for over 15 rounds in a magazine for hunting or home defense. There may be shooters who have several guns, but you have made no case that it’s just as convenient to change guns, or to run back to your car to get another gun, as it is to just keep blasting with a giant magazine. And there may be cases where smaller magazines wouldn’t have mattered, but that doesn’t make it “pretty fucking stupid” to make large magazines illegal, as Damuri asserted. It might not matter with a survivalist nut, but it might help a lot in the case of some disturbed teenager who only has access to the gun his dad owns.
Er, I encouraged my senators to vote for Manchin-Toomey. In point of fact, I wrote a letter to Toomey informing him it was the first thing he did that I approved of his whole career as the idiot from my state. I don’t bother to write one way or the other for “assault weapon” bills, I just privately find them useless. Try again?
I’ve said elsewhere that I would prefer it to be run like the DMV, with facilities and government employees doing the testing.
As usual, the idea that all gun-rights proponents are Ted Nugent is a strong contender for the stupid gun idea of the day.
The fact that most of them were voluntarily carrying THREE-FOUR guns even when 30-100 round magazines are available doesn’t strike you as an argument that some shooters will find it convenient to do so if magazines are limited?
I don’t disagree with that–I just think that it’s an issue that’s a waste of political capital because I don’t think it will meaningfully affect the number of useful rounds a mass shooter will carry into an incident.
The Aurora shooter DID in fact just drop his primary weapon and start firing with a pistol when the primary jammed up. He got off around 60 rounds total–exactly how many he’d be carrying if his weapons had been limited to 15 each.
The Sandy Hook shooter had ample time to not only change magazines but to clear a jam from his primary weapon. He changed magazines five times even with 30-round mags available.
In neither of the last two cases, I contend, would the shooter have been meaningfully slowed down by lower-capacity firearms.
And again, I’m not really “against” it, I just think it’s a waste of time. About the only commonly proposed ban I’m seriously against is the type that attempts to define a list of prohibited weapons on features other than “firepower”.
When did Zeriel vote against any gun control? Or are you conflating him with Wayne LaPierre?
In a world where guns are going to be available to the general public (there is simply nothing you are going to be able to do to change that), why WOULDN’T you want mandatory safety training?
Well, it makes their arguments easier to make. Its like Pro-life people who pretend that every pro-choice person thinks that a fetus is just a tumor inside the mother’s womb until it draws its first breath.
The general gun proponent you, not the you you.
Good thing I didn’t make that equivalency. No doubt there are thoughtful gun proponents, but they still tend to vote lock step against all gun regs, just on principle. At least when polled, some of them say they are for “reasonable” gun regs. It’s a start. Maybe.
Well, its stupid for several reasons (and perhaps stupid is too harsh a word, useless might be more appropriate, it is certainly a waste of political capital).
First of all, you don’t have to be anywhere close to an expert to have reload times under 2 or 3 seconds.
Second of all, the only situation where these sort of magazine caps might have any sort of effect is in these premeditated mass shootings. Noone is proposing magazine caps because of their use in street crime or robberies. Its because of these stories about how people tackled a mass murderer while they were reloading or how people were able to run to safety while the murderer was reloading. (the typical gun nut response to those two observations is that (i) you don’t have to wait until the murder has to reload to try and stop him if you are armed and (ii) unless the murderer stopped because he ran out of targets, a few people getting away while he was reloading only changes who dies, not how many die).
To think that a magazine cap would be effective, you would have to believe that someone planning such a mass murder wouldn’t have the initiative to go to another state to buy magazines if they wanted them.
A magazine cap might work at the federal level but you would never be able to pass a law that would require federal confiscation of the tens of millions of large capacity magazines that are already out there which would once again make the rule fairly useless, unless you believe that magazines can only be used once.