404
submitted 7 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

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 are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 3 points 7 months ago

Man people really love to drop off the first half of that sentence when quoting the second amendment.

Who's being denied access to arms? It doesn't say you get any firearm you want and there's plenty of precedent keeping certain firearms regulated.

Also, which militia are you a member of, specifically?

[-] Manmoth@lemmy.ml -5 points 7 months ago

It doesn't say you get any firearm

It says shall not be infringed which means what it says. There is no prescription for what is allowed but instead the opposite. The government cannot and should not prevent the population from arming itself. If people think that's disagreeable then they should amend the constitution not defy it.

The constitution was written by people who had just overthrown a government. This amendment wasn't written to protect the rights of hunters. It's specifically to enable the people to take control if the government gets out hand.

Also, which militia are you a member of, specifically?

Do you think the US would allow a militia to exist when it's entire purpose is to be a check on government power?

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 2 points 7 months ago

The amendment specifically states that it's there to aid the common defense.

You really aught to read the entire amendment.

[-] Wogi@lemmy.world 1 points 7 months ago

Also the idea that the founding fathers wrote down the bill of rights, still battle weary with fear of future governments is completely false.

The bill of rights was written ten years after the war had been settled, with a significant faction of the founders worried about another revolution.

They had just come out of the Articles of Confederation, a government that had no authority to tax or raise an army. The second amendment was written to address specifically that issue. That we need a militia to defend the country since we really can't do it any other way, and don't want to. So might as well let farmers have guns, much to the dismay of the federalists.

this post was submitted on 15 Apr 2024
404 points (96.3% liked)

News

23367 readers
3151 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS