Per the Denver Post this morning, a couple guys want to put on the ballot for the general public to decide if they want a magazine ban. If they get this done for the 2014 ballot, which party do you think it will benefit?
The pollsters believe one of the reasons Dems did so good in 2012 locally is that the stoners were inspired to get to the polls to legalize MJ and they tend to be Democrats.
The GOP has used ballot measures before to increase turnout. Would more traditional non-voters show up to vote to overturn the legislature's magazine ban? Or would the soccer moms be inspired to get out and vote to protect their children?
Right now? I think it will be more likely to mobilize the conservative voters.
Thomas Sowell: There are no solutions, just trade-offs.
I think it would mobilize voters to the idea that govt is trying to control too much of our lives. Conservatives, yes, but even most democrats I know don't think this is a good idea. I haven't spoken with anyone (who doesn't believe guns in general should be illegal) who thinks magazine limits will do anything to to violence rate.
I'd like to see a ballot proposal. I'd vote for it (of course!)
Too bad future generations aren't here to see all the great things we are spending their $$ on!!
I'm a Republican who supports magazine limits. I see no reason for these to be so readily available. If we created a category of super-user (like a CDL) to ensure that the buyers were trained and mentally stable, I'd support that. I think that these types of mass shootings will only increase and I don't have the stomach for all those innocent deaths. I believe ardently in the second amendment, but I do not believe that restricting access to these high capacity magazines is counter to that any more than is restricting the ownership of grenade launchers. I do believe that existing magazines should be grandfathered.
First off, we're not talking about limiting high capacity magazines, the bill proposes that standard capacity magazines be made illegal to buy or transfer.
Does one need a reason to purchase an item for themselves chickaree? I see no reason for women to have 30 pairs of shoes, but hey, if a lady wants to spend her money on shoes, who am I to tell her that she can't?
Limiting magazine capacity isn't going to limit mass shootings or the number of deaths at those mass shootings. The killer at Virginia Tech, who killed over 30 people, didn't have a single magazine in his possession which would have violated the limits proposed in HB 1224. The killer at Columbine who killed the most people had not a single magazine in his possession which exceeded 10 rounds.
And honestly, chickaree, if one is intent on going on a shooting spree, do you really think that they are going to forgo a standard capacity magazine because there is a law against buying them when they can go to any neighboring State and purchase them? Sure, it will be breaking the law, but we're talking about people who have decided to shoot up theaters and schools here for crying out loud. You think that having decided to embark upon a murder spree that they are going to be worried about a Class 2 misdemeanor offense? Seriously?
chickaree wrote: I'm a Republican who supports magazine limits. I see no reason for these to be so readily available. If we created a category of super-user (like a CDL) to ensure that the buyers were trained and mentally stable, I'd support that. I think that these types of mass shootings will only increase and I don't have the stomach for all those innocent deaths. I believe ardently in the second amendment, but I do not believe that restricting access to these high capacity magazines is counter to that any more than is restricting the ownership of grenade launchers. I do believe that existing magazines should be grandfathered.
PrintSmith wrote: First off, we're not talking about limiting high capacity magazines, the bill proposes that standard capacity magazines be made illegal to buy or transfer.
Does one need a reason to purchase an item for themselves chickaree? I see no reason for women to have 30 pairs of shoes, but hey, if a lady wants to spend her money on shoes, who am I to tell her that she can't?
Are you really comparing buying shoes to buying bullets? Well, I can kinda see it, we feminazis kill so many people with our high heels.
The restriction is meaningless unless you fab and sell magazines......simple: Any dolt can swap out a mag on an (example) AR15 in under 2 seconds and carry 50 or so if the person needs to do so. I have a nice little Beretta .38 with 8 shot clips......I can get off seven full clips in a minute....and I am slow.
OK that said, and this is for the math deprived - IF I fab and sell mags, simply I will fab and sell many more if the size is limited to......10, 15, 20....WHATEVER......RATHER THAN SAY 40. IF (YOU, Jazzz), WANT TO CIRCUMVENT THE LAW - GIVEN ABOVE WHY ??....GRIND OFF THE SN....This is a missguided liberal wet dream.
I personally don't give a flip about someone else's definitions of the terms "high" and "standard"... The bill says "no more than 15"... I'm GREAT with that... (Although, I would have preferred to see 7 or 10...)
Pick, pick, pick. Just a little at a time. NYC doesn't want fat-asses so, it bans big drinks. The Federal Government wants everyone to have health care so, they mandate it. Everyone hates smoking so lets tax the shit out of it. Better environment? Let's make food into fuel. How many times does it take to make you retards realize that the precidents being made now will affect this country for years to come. One little thing now turns into huge things later. No matter if it's a Democrat, Republican, or whatever. Start looking at the big picture instead of down your freaking noses.
Napalm sticks to kids.
Sometimes I would love to take a big stick and knock the stupid out of people.
High-Capacity Magazines Limit Bill Passed In Colorado House, Gov. John Hickenooper Expected To Sign Into Law
A bill that bans the manufacture and sale of high-capacity magazines in Colorado, limiting them to a maximum of 15 rounds passed the state House Wednesday and now heads to Gov. John Hickenlooper who is expected to sign the bill into law.
House Bill 1224 passed on a 34-30 vote with three Democratic lawmakers siding against the bill with Republicans, Rep. Leroy Garcia (D-Pueblo), Rep. Steve Lebsock (D-Thornton) and Rep. Ed Vigil (D-Fort Garland), The Denver Post reports.
One of the most vocal opponents of the bill, Magpul -- an Erie-based gun accessory manufacturer, one of the largest gun accessory makers in the nation -- had threatened to leave the state if the bill were to pass. Richard Fitzpatrick, founder and CEO of Magpul, reiterated those sentiments today during the hearing for the bill.
95 percent of voters agree that people with "serious mental health problems" should be prevented from owning a gun.
80 percent of voters agree that judges should be able to order someone who is "convicted of domestic violence or given a restraining order" to surrender their guns to the court.
80 percent of voters agree that all private gun sales should go through a licensed dealer and be subject to a background check.
65 percent of voters agree that guns should be banned on college and university campuses.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of semi-automatic guns and assault rifles should be banned.
61 percent of voters agree that the sale and possession of high-capacity ammunition clips, which allow some guns to shoot more than 10 bullets before reloading, should be banned.
Yeah, I hope you guys try to go for a ballot proposal--with 61% of Colorado residents saying that "no more than 10 rounds should be allowed per magazine/clip... (Hmmmm.... I wonder how much that will cost ?)
Oh, and: Colorado's Package Of Strict, New Gun Control Bills Near Final Passage
