Colorado Senate Voting On Gun Bills Today

Photo-fish\n

I am a life long Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican. I am 100% AGAINST these worthless new gun laws. They will not stop violence. They will not stop hate. They WILL stop people from voting for Democratic candidates in the future. They WILL force a great manufacturing business out of Colorado. They WILL force all the supporting businesses out of business or the area.

Thi[/quote

Photo-fish wrote: I am a life long Democrat. I have never voted for a Republican. I am 100% AGAINST these worthless new gun laws. They will not stop violence. They will not stop hate. They WILL stop people from voting for Democratic candidates in the future. They WILL force a great manufacturing business out of Colorado. They WILL force all the supporting businesses out of business or the area.

This is absurd; you add more bad worthless gun laws and then sue local county governments when they want to ban fracking that will kill tens of thousands of Coloradans in the future. Criminals, by nature, do not honor the LAW, so what or who, are we trying to limit?

We agree. Last Sunday I was at a firing range for the first time in my life. This wasn't my first time around guns. When I was growing up on the east coast we would go to a turkey shoot twice a year (yes... a defenseless turkey was shot at at 100 yards in hopes of popping off his head and winning a turkey for a single dollar) and I knew how to handle small caliber rifles and shotguns.

But I had never been to a firing range, I had never fired a 9mm and larger ammo, and I found the whole experience enlightening. Watching through the glass, I saw shooters that were able to fire 10 rounds, drop the magazine and slap in another one... all without missing a single beat OR barely missing a second between magazines.

Prime proof that limiting the capacity of magazines will do nothing to prevent a mad man from getting off as many rounds as he can afford. All it takes is a little hand to gun coordination and the will to kill. By the way... the shooter I mention in the above paragraph was a mother of 3... I'm sure she wasn't practicing to take out her daughter's kindergarten class.

So... for those feel-good Democrats... I hope the warm glow you are feeling right now doesn't fade the next time someone who is determined to kill massive amounts of people... happens... and it will... that's human nature. Because the warm glow will be the only thing you will be taking away from this fiasco.

I've always said magazine size only stops law abiding citizens from having what they need to defend themselves. Typically, the law abiding one only carries one magazine-in the gun. This would apply to in the house, or business, or whatever. A criminal bent on killing KNOWS what he is planning on doing, so he carries whatever magazines he needs to kill as many as possible. With these laws, you now are limiting the good people, while doing nothing to the bad people.

Looks like New York's governor might backtrack on the seven round limit and go back to the previous 10 round. Sanity returning?

As I age and ammo prices increase, I find myself using 10 round bench magazines more. They are handy and let you get prone better, but I still want to be able to buy the larger ones for competitions I participate in.

Gee, how many of the larger ones do you already own?... How many are already out there that you can purchase from friends, the Internet, other states, ...... (since no one is coming to take them...)

Want some cheese with that whine?

LadyJazzer wrote: Gee, how many of the larger ones do you already own?... How many are already out there that you can purchase from friends, the Internet, other states, ...... (since no one is coming to take them...)

Want some cheese with that whine?

How about addressing the fact that the size of the magazine is NOT going to stop a determined killer from getting off as many rounds as he can, darn near as fast as he could if he had a 100 round magazine (or whatever) and the new law is ONLY going to effect law-abiding citizens... the folks that least need a restrictive law like this?

I'll wait for your insight... because so far, up to this point... you've offered nothing substantial. In short... tell us what does the magazine size restriction law solve, other than making you and a handful of stupid politicians feel good?

Well, we know it wouldn't have altered what happened at Virginia Tech, where 32 died and 17 were injured by gunfire. That killer didn't have a single magazine which held more than 15 rounds, he just had a bunch of them.

We know it wouldn't have saved even one life that one of the Columbine killers took nearly 14 years ago while federal law limited magazine capacity for civilians. Harris had not a single magazine or weapon which held more than 10 rounds.

We know that magazine capacity had little to do with the carnage at Sandy Hook. It is widely reported that killer changed magazines frequently during his murder spree, often dropping magazines that still held as many as 15 rounds in them to load a fresh magazine as he had learned to do in the video games he played.

We know that magazine capacity had little to do with the final toll at the Aurora Theater as well. The only weapon that killer had with with a high capacity magazine didn't even fire one standard magazine's worth of rounds before becoming jammed and useless to the killer that morning. More reliable 15 round magazines could very likely have increased the amount of carnage in this instance, not decreased it.

So please tell me again how we are all safer if the law survives the challenges that are sure to follow yesterday's signing because from an examination of the evidence available, the only reasoned conclusion one can draw is that we won't be any safer a year from now than we are today.

The shooter in Conneticut was dumping half full magazines, moving to a next room, putting in a fresh mag and no one stopped him in this "gun free" zone.

And BTW, a new AWB? CT had already passed a AWB years ago.

At first glance, Democrat Governor John Hickenlooper’s signing statement from yesterday’s gun control bill signing seemed odd, but perhaps Queen of Colorado Political Media, the Denver Post‘s Lynn Bartels, hit the nail on the head when she tweeted the following:
Lynn Bartels @lynn_bartels

Can't remember another bill signed into law that needed a disclaimer on here's how it is supposed to work. #magban #coleg

Colorado Peak Politics

Sounds like the Governor signed the bill at the administration's request despite it's failings.

I noticed that not a SINGLE ONE OF THE ADVOCATES of this magazine law can tell us how it will prevent mass killings by crazy-ass people? They have no answer... that's why.