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.
You ever seen cops shoot?
I’ve seen a bunch of 'em get DQ’d from matches for being unsafe, or drop out when it was clear their scores were trash.
they’ve got a pretty good kda ratio
They use hacks like ESP and wallhacks.
In all seriousness, though, it’s only because they always outnumber and have more resources than the person/people that they are in a shootout with. Not because they are better with firearms than an average gun owner who also trains with their firearm.
Yeah, and that’s what you’re up against thinking your guns are keeping the government in check.
…And yet, when cops see protestors that are as heavily armed as they are, historically they suddenly get very, very respectful. When the Proud Man-Children discover that the BLM protestors are armed and disciplined, they suddenly lose all their courage. Cops suddenly get really, really nervous when they realize that if they start shit, they aren’t going to have a numerical advantage. When you’ve got one suspect and 20 cops though?
Cops aren’t there to protect or serve the people; they’re there to protect and serve the status quo.
But damn, people sure do hop on cops’ dicks whenever someone says they might want to be able to protect themselves rather than hoping that cops will do it.
Gun grabbers will say they don’t trust police and then say they’re the only ones who should be armed in the same paragraph. It’s wild.
I think most examples of armed protests in the US are on the side of police. But US police are also an example of America’s problem with too many guns, they kill way too many people and should also have fewer guns.
Many, yes. But people on the left are slowly starting to learn the lessons that the Black Panthers and Malcolm X were trying to teach us. (…The lessons that ultimately got Malcolm X killed, IMO.) Groups like the John Brown Gun Clubs are working with and helping to train activists in order to for them to protect themselves from Proud Man-Children, and “Patriot” groups, since cops won’t.
Power is never given willingly; power must be taken. The police have power, and asking nicely gets you nothing.
Not really. At the point where there’s consensus that we are, in fact, in a civil war, then:
A) you’re not some nutjob holed up in his house using his neighbor as a hostage B) there are others, and organization is doable
Yes, the government has organization and experience. Hopefully, it’ll just never be an issue. Likely, there would be internal divisions, as well. But being ready for it to be an issue can both help prevent it becoming one, and give one the capacity to have an impact if it does become an issue.
If things get to an actual civil war where tyrannical government is willing to use its resources, i think you are severely underestimating the resources. The satellite and drone intel, the ability to destroy routes civilian vehicles can take, the aerial strikes. Civilians arent gonna get together no matter the heads they can put together and build competing anti air capabilities. Its not like a battle of damage numbers in a game, its ability to even play the games that they can. Like a well armored knight fighting against squirrels, the numbers dont matter, the little claws cant get through steel.
Thats all you can hope for, thats the only way civilians in any developed country survives:having a government that doesnt want to kill them. Armed population or not, it really has no effect.
deleted by creator
Air strikes on your own populace? That’s a way to build friends.
The whole premise theyre defending is we should have guns to defend against the US government. If the US government actually wanted to kill them, thats what they would be facing.
Putting aside the moral legitimacy of a government or a ‘rebel’ or ‘resistance’ group:
How does a government determine the difference between an intelligent citizenry that is defending itself in covert guerrilla warfare vs the citizenry that is not doing so?
You’re acting like the government could just blow through with tanks and airstrikes, and be done with it all. That’s not how a civil war with a mixed population works. As a more extreme example to make it clear, the government could also use nukes on the populace, but would obviously not typically do so, since doing so would involve killing the citizenry it considers legitimate along with those it considers illegitimate, and would cause too much collateral damage.
It’s not like any modern rebellion would involve forming lines, having regular meeting spaces, or anything like that. Either the government is reasonable enough that change from within is possible, or it will be fought, in both passive and direct ways, by the populace.
Basically, your reasoning amounts to “being armed wouldn’t work, so let’s permit a Holocaust, because in the mean time, people are killing each other sometimes”, even though this is the safest period in history.
Your current opinion that it’s pointless or not possible basically relegates you to the role of being a fascism enabler that’s tender to kids. I’d rather fight if needed, but you do you.
It totally worked in Vietnam and Afghanistan. The militant forces were completely pacified.