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.
I would argue that hunting, defense, and sport are not reasons we have the right to bear arms. Its to overthrow a tyrannical government.
It’s actually to have well-armed militias at the state level. Individuals, unorganized will have no chance to overthrow any government. Hence the militia part.
The problem with that is that’s putting a lot of faith in the state both not being just a tool of the tyrannical government, or the state not being tyrannical themselves, which is why i support a more granular right to bear arms. But you are right that was the plain intention for the second amendment.
“the right of the people to keep and bear Arms” verbatim text, the state ≠ the people. I’m sure the British thought the same thing when a rebellious colony started to fight.
Read the rest of it, not just the parts you like. This isn’t the Bible.
We’ve seen 2 attempts to overthrow the federal government. 1 in the 1860s and 1 in 2020. Neither time was the government acting tyrannically. Neither time did it work. Neither time did guns help. Maybe guns aren’t the answer to that problem, either.
Then it’s not protected/covered by the second amendment. The tyrannical qualifier prevents it from covering baseless coups. But there was a reason it was put in due to the harsh lessons learned from the revolutionary war.
I may reconsider my position on the second amendment if you can convince me that the government or the local police will not become tyrannical, ever…
I might change my position on the 2nd Amendment if you can show me that access to so many guns prevents a government from ever becoming tyrannical. So far, that access has only made society itself tyrannical and given the police all the excuse they needed to be able to use tanks, APCs, and other military equipment against us.
I mean, usually a rebellion against a government success is tied to its access to weaponry. I don’t know a single rebellion against tyranny that was successful without weapons.
I am for more regulations because obviously we got a massive problem here. but with my primary point being what i said above, how do you decide who can’t have a weapon without the government ultimately deciding who can have a gun, which defeats the purpose of having the right in the first place.
I was thinking about leaning into the militias where you have to be sponsored by a group that could have their rights to guns withdrawn as a whole when they foster a bad actor, to make sponsorships harder and to have a pressure to maintain connections with people and when someone starts throwing red flags or ghosting, there is a group with a vested interest to start interventions. But then there is the tricky bit of taking the guns when it’s time to enforce anything, still has the government choosing who can be armed. So i still am stuck.
That being said i don’t have a weapon.